Mississippi Cotton Oil Co. v. Smith, 13,450

• Decision Date: 15 March 1909
• Docket Number: 13,450
• Citation: 48 So. 735,95 Miss. 528
• Parties: MISSISSIPPI OIL COMPANY v. SARAH J. SMITH ET AL
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

48 So. 735

95 Miss. 528

MISSISSIPPI OIL COMPANY v. SARAH J. SMITH ET AL

No. 13,450

Supreme Court of Mississippi

March 15, 1909

FROM the circuit court of Lauderdale county, HON. ROBERT F COCHRAN, Judge.

Mrs Smith and others, appellees, were plaintiffs in the court below; the Mississippi Cotton Oil Company, appellant, was defendant there.From a judgment in plaintiff's favor defendant appealed to the supreme court.The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Reversed and remanded.

Green &amp Green for appellant.

Counsel argued the case fully in their brief, citing the following authorities:--

Solomon v. Compress Co., 69 Miss. 326, 10 So. 446, 12 So. 339;Miller v. Wesson,58 Miss. 834;Railroad Co. v. Davis,91 Ala. 496;Railway Co. v. Hirsch,69 Miss. 135, 13 So. 244;Railroad Co. v. Miller,51 Tex. 274;Buckley v. G. P. & R. M. Co.,113 N.Y. 540;Crowley v. Mills,148 Mass. 230;Ash v. Verlenden Bros.,154 Pa. St. 249;Ciriack v. Woolen Co.,151 Mass. 156;Borch v. Nut Works,69 N.W. 254;Ogley v. Miles,139 N.Y. 458;Lowcock v. Paper Co.,169 Mass. 313;Groth v. Thomann,110 Wis. 488;Marsden v. Johnson,89 Ill.App. 102;Natchez Co. v. McLain,33 So. 723;Nonforton. v. Brick Co.,113 Mich. 39;Coke Co. v. Timilson,51 S.E. 362;Bender v. Glucose Co.,61 A. 389;Wener v. Trautwein,61 S.W. 447;Oszkoscil v. Pencil Co.,6 N.Y.S. 502;Bibb v. Taylor,95 Ga. 615;Probert v. Phipps,149 Mass. 258;Langlois v. Worsted Mills,57 A. 910;Becham v. Miller,47 N. J. L. 14;Railroad Co. v. Cathey,70 Miss. 237, 12 So. 253;Cudahy v. Marcan,106 F. 647;Railway Co. v. Dixon,139 F. 737;Moore v. Johnson,103 Va. 88;Goraussow v. Manufacturing Co.,186 Mo. 300;Dobson v. State,67 Miss. 330, 7 So. 327;Railroad Co. v. Humphrey,83 Miss. 739, 36 So. 154;2 Labatt on Master & Servant, sec. 833;Fuller v. Ann Arbor R. Co.,104 N.W. 414;Grant v. Railroad Co.,133 N.Y. 657;Goranson v. Manufacturing Co.,186 Mo. 300;Vicksburg v. Hennesey,54 Miss. 391;Fisk v. Railroad Co.,72 Cal. 38;Michael v. Henry,58 A. 125;Nudd v. Insurance Co.,25 Minn. 100;Shadoan v. Railroad Co.,82 S.W. 567;Prentiss v. Furniture Co.,63 Mich. 482;Leistritz v. Zylonite Co.,28 N.E. 294;Railway Co. v. Skinner,4 Tex. Civ. App. 661, 23 S.W. 1001;Railroad Co. v. Dial,58 Ark. 323;Railroad Co. v. Miller,51 Tex. 274;Youll v. RailroadCo., 66 Ia. 348, 349;Downey v. Sawyer,157 Mass. 418;O'Keefe v. Thorn,16 A. 737;Ertz v. Pierson,130 Mich. 163;Buttle v. Box Co.,175 Mass. 318;McCann v. Mathison,133 N.Y. 263;White v. Lithographic Co.,131 N.Y. 631, 30 N.E. 236;Hickey v. Taffe,105 N.Y. 26, 12 N.E. 286;Hettchen v. Chipman,87 Md. 732;Mueller v. Shoe Co.,84 S.W. 1010;Colb v. Chicago,33 Ill.App. 488;Engine Works v. Randall,100 Ind. 293, 298, 300;O'Maley v. Light Co.,158 Mass. 135, 32 N.E. 1119;Nugent v. Kauffman,33 S.W. 428;Thrasher v. Loring, 2 Smed. & M. 149;McCue v. Stratch Co.,142 N.Y. 106;Jones v. Coal Co.,211 Pa. 577, 578;4 Thom. Neg. 4095;Diehl v. Oil Co.,57 A. 131;11 Ency.Pl. &Pr. 137;Railroad Co. v. Mitchell,52 Miss. 808;French v. Sales,63 Miss. 386;Myrick v. Wells,52 Miss. 149;Prine v. State,73 Miss. 842, 19 So. 711;Haverly v. Railroad Co.,19 A. 1014;Railroad Co. v. McGowan,62 Miss. 695;Hasie v. Railway Co.,78 Miss. 417, 28 So. 941;Levy v. Holberg,71 Miss. 66, 14 So. 537;Rippey v. Miller,62 Am. Dec. 178;Moulton v. Gibbs,105 Ill.App. 104;Railroad Co. v. Overstreet,85 Miss. 85, 37 So. 819;Railroad Co. v. Whitfield,44 Miss. 499;Kutchera v. Goodwillie,93 Wis. 448;Bagnowski v. Linderman,93 Wis. 592;Dunlap v. Heam,37 Miss. 471;Dougherty v. Vanderpool,35 Miss. 165;11 Ency.Pl. &Pr. 116;Railroad Co. v. White,82 Miss. 471, 34 So. 331;15 Am. & Eng. Ency.Law, p. 881;Railroad Co. v. Crudup,63 Miss. 303;Telephone Co. v. Anderson,89 Miss. 745, 41 So. 263;Colbert v. Railroad Co.,67 A. 446;Railway Co. v. Berry,102 S.W. 89;Foster v. Railroad Co.,72 Miss. 886;Kamerick v. Castleman,21 Mo.App. 587;Bernheim v. Dibrell,66 Miss. 202;Smith v. Team,16 So. 492;Fetuson v. Brown,75 Miss. 224;Bulliner v. People,95 Ill. 394;Robinson v. Craig,17 Ala. 51;McDonald Iron & Steel Co., 103 N.W. 833;Crammond v. International Paper Co.,101 N.Y.S. 363;Riley v. Rapid Transit Co.,10 Utah 430;Johnson v. Railroad Co.,64 Wis. 425;Post v. Olmstead,47 Neb. 893;Chicago v. Kimball,18 Ill.App. 240;Railroad Co. v. Watson,78 S.W. 176;Railroad Co. v. Ebert,74 Ill. 399;Telephone Co. v. Anderson,89 Miss. 743, 41 So. 263;Perkins v. Guy,55 Miss. 182;Cavanah v. State,56 Miss. 308;Martin v. State,63 Miss. 508;Cross v. State,68 Ala. 476;Wolfe v. Minnis,74 Ala. 386;Proffatt on Jury Trials, § 250;Railway Co. v. Beezley,101 S.W. 1051;Loughlin v. Brassil,187 N.Y. 135;Johnson v. McNiff, 113 Ill.App. 2.

G. Q. Hall, Hall & Jacobson, for appellee.

Counsel argued the case fully in their brief, citing the following authorities:--Highland Avenue, etc., R. Co. Dusenberry, 98 Ala. 239, 10 So. 274;Maupay v. Holley,3 Ala. 103;16 Cyc. 872;Atlanta Cotton Factory v. Speer,47 Am. Rep. 750;Yazoo, etc., R. Co. v. Slaughter,45 So. 873;Telephone Co. v. Anderson,89 Miss. 732, 41 So. 263;Rummell v. Dillsworth Porter & Co.,19 A. 345;Brazill Black Co. v. Gaffney,4 L. R. A. 850;Marbury L. Co. v. Westbrook,35 So. 914;Adams v. Bunker Hill,11 L. R. A. (N. S.) 844;Schum v. Pennsylvania R. Co.,107 Pa. St. 8;Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Weber,76 Pa. St. 157;Savage v. R. I. Company,67 A. 633;3 Wigmore on Evidence, sec. 1698;Pittsburgh C. C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Lightseiser,78 N.E. 1033;Illinois, etc., R. Co. v. Hutchins,89 S.W. 530;Reynolds v. Narragansett, etc., Co.,59 A. 393;Central Railroad Co. v. Richards,62 Ga. 307;Richmond & Danville R. Co. v. Garner,91 Ga. 27;Columbus v. Sims,94 Ga. 483;Railroad Co. v. Putman,118 U.S. 545;Coates v. Burlington, etc., R. Co.,62 Iowa 486;Atlanta, etc., R. Co. v. Beauchamp,93 Ga. 6, 19 S.E. 24;Cartwright v. State,71 Miss. 85, 14 So. 526;Yazoo, etc., R. Co. v. Rivers,46 So. 75;Sartorious v. State,24 Miss. 602;Taylor v. State,30 So. 657; Mitchell v. McGee & Alford;Crow v. Burgin,38 So. 625;Noden v. VerlenderBros., 3 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 367;Rose v. Railway Co.,70 Miss. 725, 12 So. 825;Jones v. Edwards,57 Miss. 28;Hewlett v. Ragsdale,68 Miss. 703, 9 So. 885;Railroad Co. v. Chastine,54 Miss. 503;Express Co. v. Brown,67 Miss. 260, 7 So. 318;Lagrone v. Railroad Co.,67 Miss. 592, 7 So. 432;Schofield v. Smelting Co.,50 L. R. A. 417;Taylor v. Braddord, 83 Miss. 157, 36 So. 423.

Argued orally by Garner W. Green, for appellant, and by G. Q. Hall, for appellee.

OPINION

WHITFIELD, C. J.

This is an action brought by the plaintiffs, Mrs. Smith, mother, and her four children, minors, for damages resulting from the killing by the appellant of Willie Mack Smith, the son of the mother, and brother of the minors.The decedent was caught and crushed in the machinery of the appellant, and died some twenty-four hours later, after enduring manifestly very great physical and mental agony.There was a judgment in the court below for $ 10,000 damages, from which this appeal was prosecuted.

Going at once to the vital points in the case, we first take up the alleged error in the admission of the mortuary tables.It will be necessary to deal with this assignment of error in two aspects: First, as regards the pleadings; and, second, as regards the evidence.

First, then, as to the pleadings, the declaration has six counts.Each of these counts closes with specifically enumerated elements of damage, all of which are practically alike, being substantially as follows: "For which pain, suffering, and anguish, mental and physical, and the loss to plaintiffs of his services, support, society, and protection, and the expenses of his last illness and burial," etc., the said plaintiffs sued.It is manifest that there is no specific express claim, therefore, in the declaration, for the recovery of damages, for the present value of the life expectancy of the deceased.This was a perfectly proper element to have been specifically claimed in the declaration.Telephone Co. v. Anderson,89 Miss. 732, 41 So. 263.It may be correct to say that if the declaration had not specifically enumerated the elements of damage, but had simply declared for damages generally in a certain amount, the plaintiffs could have recovered all the damages named in section 721, Code of 1906; that is to say, all damages of every kind to the decedent, and all damages of every kind to any and all parties interested in the suit.We think that is a correct proposition.Whether, when the plaintiffs choose specifically to enumerate the elements of damage in this suit, they are to be limited to those elements only, as a matter of pleading alone, it is not in this case necessary to decide; for in this casethe defendant made no objection to the testimony of Cameron, or to the introduction of the mortuary tables, based upon the ground that the declaration had not claimed this element of damages, the present value of the deceased's life expectancy, but, on the contrary, actually asked and obtained an instruction (No. 9), telling the jury they might award, if they found for the plaintiffs, such damages--that is to say, all such damages "as were shown to have been caused by the death of said Smith"--which charge is broad enough to cover this very element of damages.In view of this course on the part of defendant, in respect to testimony and its said charge, it cannot be held in this case that on the pleading alone the plaintiffs could not claim to recover this element of damages.On the pleadings, therefore, the objection is untenable in the case made by this record.

Turning now, to the aspect of this...