Price v. Yellow Pine Paper Mill Co.
Decision Date | 27 February 1922 |
Docket Number | (No. 762.) |
Citation | 240 S.W. 588 |
Parties | PRICE et al. v. YELLOW PINE PAPER MILL CO. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Action by Mary Price and husband against the Yellow Pine Paper Mill Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiffs bring error. Reversed and remanded.
David E. O'Fiel and R. A. Wood, both of Beaumont, for plaintiffs in error.
Holland & Holland, of Orange, for defendant in error.
O'QUINN, J.
Mary Price, joined by her husband, R. A. Price, sued the Yellow Pine Paper Mill Company for damages to Mrs. Price, resulting to her from fright and mental shock caused by George S. Holmes, the general manager of the defendant company, taking R. A. Price, who was an employé of said company, to his home in the evening of October 6, 1916, bloody, bruised, and mashed up, resulting from an accident in the paper mill, without any warning to Price's wife, and she, being in an advanced stage of pregnancy, was so shocked and frightened at the sight of her husband's plight that she miscarried some few days later.
Plaintiffs petition, among other things, alleged, in substance, that R. A. Price, husband of Mary Price, was an employé of defendant on October 6, 1916, and while engaged in the performance of his duties was injured by the falling in of a brick furnace in which he and others were working; that he received various cuts, bruises, and wounds, from which he became very bloody, and was caused to bear a frightful appearance; that, immediately after the accident occurred, George S. Holmes, who was defendant's general manager, took charge of the situation, and directed the giving of first aid to the injured, and that in so doing he was acting within the scope of his authority; that said R. A. Price was so injured that he became unconscious and was not mentally capable of suggesting or directing as to what disposition should be made of him in his said condition, and that, being in such condition, it became the duty of the defendant to make such disposition of him as would not, under the circumstances, be injurious to others, and that defendant, acting through its said general manager, did undertake to render first aid to plaintiff R. A. Price and to make disposition of him; that defendant, acting by and through its said general manager, caused the said R. A. Price to be placed in an automobile to be carried from the scene of the accident to his (Price's) home, and that while on the way to his said home he (Price) became conscious, and protested to said Holmes, who was driving the automobile, against being carried home in his bloody and wounded condition; that he told said Holmes that his wife, Mary Price, was in an advanced stage of pregnancy, and in no condition to see him in his bloody condition, and that he would get out of the car, but that said Holmes carried him on to his home and put him out of the car in full view of his wife, Mary Price, who became so frightened and excited by his bloody plight that she became sick, and continued to suffer until she miscarried, and which sickness and miscarriage was caused by the careless and negligent act of said Holmes, after he had been informed of the critical condition of said Mary Price, and which said careless and negligent act of defendant was the direct and proximate cause of her said sickness and miscarriage.
The defendant presented a general demurrer, and numerous special exceptions to the plaintiffs' petition, which were overruled. Defendant also, by way of answer, denied all the allegations of plaintiffs' petition, and specially answered that it was a subscriber to the Texas Employers' Insurance Association of the State of Texas, and that plaintiffs would have to look to said insurance association for all damages growing out of the injuries sustained by said R. A. Price while in defendant's employ; that any duty owing to the said R. A. Price to take care of or dispose of him after his alleged injury was owed to him and due to him by said Texas Employers' Insurance Association, and not by the defendant, and that any duty owed to Mary Price was owed to her by said insurance association, and not by defendant.
The case went to trial before a jury; but, when the testimony was closed, the court instructed a verdict for defendant, upon which judgment was rendered, and from which plaintiffs appealed.
Mrs. Mary Price, plaintiff, among other things, testified as follows:
On cross-examination:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ferriter v. Daniel O'Connell's Sons, Inc.
...Cf. Diebler v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp., 196 Misc. 618, 92 N.Y.S.2d 356 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1949); Price v. Yellow Pine Paper Mill Co., 240 S.W. 588 (Tex.Civ.App.1922) (family member can recover for physical and emotional harm caused by employer's independent act following injury......
-
Brown v. Matthews Mortuary, Inc.
...(1927) (mutilation of dead body); Boyle v. Chandler, 138 A. 273 (Del.Sup.1927) (removal of body from casket); Price v. Yellow Pine Paper Mill Co., 240 S.W. 588 (Tex.Civ.App.1922) (plaintiff's husband brought home in severely injured condition without warning); Great A. & P. Tea Co. v. Roch,......
-
Hatfield v. Max Rouse & Sons Northwest
...(1927) (mutilation of dead body); Boyle v. Chandler, 138 A. 273 (Del.Sup.1927) (removal of body from casket); Price v. Yellow Pine Paper Mill Co., 240 S.W. 588 (Tex.Civ.App.1922) (plaintiff's husband brought home in severely injured condition without warning); Great A. & P. Tea Co. v. Roch,......
-
Pac. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Tetirick
...right, and cite as authority therefor such cases as Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Roch (Md.) 153 A. 22; Price v. Yellow Pine Paper Mill Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 240 S.W. 588; St. Louis-S. F. Ry. Co. v. Clark, 104 Okla. 24, 229 P. 779: and Stockwell v. Gee, 121 Okla. 207, 249 P. 389. ¶4 Ma......