Richmond Passenger & Power Co v. Robinson

• Decision Date: 12 June 1902
• Citation: 100 Va. 394,41 S.E. 719
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: RICHMOND PASSENGER & POWER CO. v. ROBINSON.

41 S.E. 719

100 Va. 394

RICHMOND PASSENGER & POWER CO.

v.ROBINSON.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

June 12, 1902.

APPEAL—BILL OF EXCEPTIONS—RULINGS ON EVIDENCE—NEGLIGENCE—EXEMPLARY DAMAGES.

1. An exception to the ruling of a trial court on a motion to reject or admit evidence cannot be reviewed unless there is a bill of exceptions, signed by the judge, clearly pointing out the erroneous ruling complained of.

2. Though there may be several exceptions saved by the same bill, each must set forth distinctly the ground of objection relied on.

3. One bill of exceptions duly taken is sufficient to bring up fur review all of the instructions given over objection thereto or all those refused.

4. In an action to recover for negligence of defendant, exemplary damages may be awarded if the facts warranting them are stated with sumcient distinctness to inform the defendant of the charge which he is required to meet, though damages are not claimed, eo nomine, in the declaration.

Error to circuit court of city of Richmond.

Action by J. E. Robinson against the Richmond Passenger & Power Company. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error. Affirmed.

Henry Taylor, Jr., for plaintiff in error.

H. R. & J. G. Pollard, for defendant in error.

CARDWELL, J. John E. Robinson brought his action of trespass on the case against the Richmond Passenger & Power Company, a corporation operating an electric street railway line In the city of Richmond, and recovered a judgment of $550 as damages resulting from the alleged negligence of the defendant company.

The declaration filed consists of one count, and charges that the defendant had constructed its railway in the streets of the city of Richmond, and used electricity as a motive power; that it was its duty at all times to construct, maintain, keep in order, and repair its tracks, wires, and other equipment, that persons might travel with safety upon the streets of the city without damage or hurt from electricity, yet the said defendant, not regarding its duty, did so carelessly and negligently construct and maintain its tracks, wires, and other equipments, and did so carelessly and negligently keep in repair and order its said equipments as to allow the escape therefrom of a current of electricity; that by reason of the carelessness, negligence, and default of the defendant in the premises, the plaintiff, without fault or negligence on his part, was on July 19, 1900, at the intersection of Eighteenth and Franklin streets, in the city aforesaid, greatly bruised, wounded, etc., by a current of electricity from the tracks or wires of the defendant, whereby the plaintiff became sick, sore, etc., and was damaged to the amount of $1,500.

It appears from the evidence that the plaintiff was a driver of the delivery wagon of a groceryman doing business in the city of Richmond, and while driving his wagon, the day he received the injuries of which he complains, along one of the streets of the city, and when crossing the track of the defendant at the intersection of Eighteenth and Franklin streets, his horse was thrown down by an electric shock received by coming in contact with the track, and he (the plaintiff) thereby thrown from his wagon to the ground, receiving also an electric shock, and was taken up in an insensible condition, and remained unconscious for 24 hours; that, after a severe illness of several months, he was only able to return to his work in November following, but was then in delicate health as a result of his injuries, and, though his strength was several months after fully restored, his mental condition at the time of the trial of this cause (June 7, 1901) was still impaired.

It further appears that not only was the track of the defendant, at and near the point where the plaintiff sustained his injuries, in a dangerous condition, —electricity continually escaping therefrom, —but this condition had continued for about 18 months next preceding this accident, without the defendant's taking any efficient steps towards remedying the defects.

We are asked to reverse the judgment of the circuit court and award a new trial: First, because of misdirection of the jury; and, second, because the verdict is excessive.

The trial court gave five instructions to the jury, four of which were asked by the plaintiff, and the fifth by the defendant.

No objection is made here to plaintiff's instructions, other than the fourth. It is in the words following:

"The jury are instructed that in actions of this kind, if the jury find the defendant guilty, under the evidence and instructions of the court, and if they further find from the evidence that the defendant was guilty of a wanton disregard of the duty resting upon it, as explained in the first instruction, and that the plaintiff...