Purcell v. St. Paul City Ry. Co.
Citation | 48 Minn. 134,50 N.W. 1034 |
Parties | PURCELL v ST. PAUL CITY RY. CO. |
Decision Date | 18 January 1892 |
Court | Supreme Court of Minnesota (US) |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
(Syllabus by the Court.)
1. If the negligence of a carrier place a passenger in a position of such apparent imminent peril as to cause fright, and the fright causes nervous convulsions and illness, the negligence is the proximate cause of the injury, and the injury is one for which an action may be brought.
2. A passenger injured by negligence of the carrier is entitled to recover to the full extent of the injury so caused, without regard to whether, owing to his previous condition of health, he is more or less liable to injury.
Appeal from district court, Ramsey county; OTIS, Judge.
Action by Annie Purcell against the St. Paul City Railway to recover for personal injuries resulting from defendant's negligence. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Henry J. Horn,for appellant.
Johnston W. Straight and L. A. Straight, for respondent.
Appeal from an order overruling a general demurrer to the complaint. From the complaint it appears that the plaintiff was a passenger on one of defendant's cars running upon its line on Jackson street, St. Paul; that, when the car reached the intersection of that line with the defendant's cable-car line running on East Seventh street, the persons in charge of it negligently attempted to cross, and did cross, the cable line in front of a then near and rapidly approaching cable train thereon; that a collision seemed so imminent, and was so nearly caused, that the incident and attending confusion of ringing alarm-bells and passengers rushing out of the car caused to plaintiff sudden fright and reasonable fear of immediate death or great bodily injury, and that the shock thus caused threw her into violent convulsions, and caused to her, she being then pregnant, a miscarriage, and subsequent illness. The complaint shows a duty on the part of the defendant to exercise the highest degree of care to carry the plaintiff safely. It also shows negligence in respect to that duty, and, if the negligence caused what the law regards as actionable injury, the action is well brought. Of course, negligence without injury gives no right of action. On the argument there was much discussion of the question whether bright and mental distress alone constitute such injury that the law will allow a recovery for it. The question is not involved in the case. So it may be conceded that any effect of a wrongful act or neglect on the mind alone will not furnish ground of action. Here is a physical injury, as serious, certainly, as would be the breaking of an arm or a leg. Does the complaint show that defendant's negligence was the proximate cause of that injury? If so, the action will, of course, lie. What is in law a proximate cause is well expressed in the definition, often quoted with approval, given in Railroad Co. v. Kellogg, 94 U. S. 469, as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hayhurst v. Boyd Hospital
...... injury. ( Ruble v. Busby, 27 Idaho 486, Ann. Cas. 1917D, 665, 149 P. 722; City of Shawnee v. Jeter, 96. Okla. 272, 221 P. 758; Marovich v. Central Cal. Traction. Co., 191 ...523; Hansman v. Western. Union Tel. Co., 144 Minn. 56, 174 N.W. 434; Young v. St. Paul City Ry. Co., 142 Minn. 10, 170 N.W. 845.). . . "A. person injured by negligence is ... more or less liable to injury." ( Purcell v. St. Paul. City Ry. Co., 48 Minn. 134, 50 N.W. 1034, 16 L. R. A. 203; Wendt v. Bowman & ......
-
Denver & R.G.R. Co. v. Roller
...... . . . The. plaintiff in error had an office in the city of San. Francisco. Upon the windows of this office were signs which. read, 'Denver & Rio Grande ... v. Railway Co., 111 Cal. 668, 680, 44 P. 320, 32 L.R.A. 193; Purcell v. Railway Co., 48 Minn. 134, 137, 50. N.W. 1034, 16 L.R.A. 203; Railway Co. v. Marchant, . 28 ......
-
Beaulieu v. Great N. Ry. Co.
...injury is inflicted or character or reputation assailed (Lesch v. Railway Co., 97 Minn. 503, 106 N. W. 955;Purcell v. Railway Co., 48 Minn. 134, 50 N. W. 1034,16 L. R. A. 203;Sanderson v. Railway Co., 88 Minn. 162, 92 N. W. 542,60 L. R. A. 403, 97 Am. St. Rep. 509). But such damages are not......
-
Amaya v. Home Ice, Fuel & Supply Co.
...P. 819, L.R.A.1915D, 834; Kimberly v. Howland (1906), 143 N.C. 398, 55 S.E. 778, 7 L.R.A.,N.S., 545; Purcell v. St. Paul City Ry. Co. (1892), 48 Minn. 134, 50 N.W. 1034, 16 L.R.A. 203. According to the writer of Intentional Infliction of Mental Suffering: A New Tort in Illinois, 11 De Paul ......