Skipper v. South Central Bell Tel. Co.
| Citation | 334 So.2d 863 |
| Parties | Lizzie Hadley SKIPPER v. SOUTH CENTRAL BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, a corp. SC 1591. |
| Decision Date | 09 July 1976 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
Charles C. Partin, Bay Minette, for appellant.
Atley A. Kitchings, Jr. and J. Richard Teel, Birmingham, J. B. Blackburn, Bay Minette, for appellee.
The principal issue on this appeal is whether the trial court's oral instruction to the jury, was erroneous in requiring the jury to first find compensatory damages in order to award punitive damages.
Lizzie Hadley Skipper, plaintiff below, appeals from a judgment on a jury verdict that denied damages claimed of South Central Bell Telephone Company, defendant below, for wrongfully terminating her telephone service.
We affirm.
On 18 March 1974, the telephone company terminated Mrs. Skipper's service at her unlisted number, 937--8054, for nonpayment of her January bill. She claimed she had never received notice that the January bill was due until she was called by the telephone company on 1 March. She testified that in this call she informed the telephone company she had, on 28 February, mailed a money order for the exact amount due, $33.87. The company's evidence was that two notices had been mailed to her before the call.
A money order for $33.87 was cashed by the telephone company the day before service was terminated. There was nothing on the money order to identify either an account number or a telephone number. Her unlisted telephone number could not be identified by the company's bookkeeping department without an account number shown on the remittance. The directory listed Lizzie Hadley, number 937--8739, but the account for that number was in the name of her former husband, Buford Hadley. It was to this account the $33.87 was credited. Mrs. Skipper says she made repeated requests that service be restored but that the telephone company demanded a new deposit of $75 as condition to doing so. After she employed an attorney, service was restored without requiring her to put up a new deposit.
Mr. Skipper's claim for damages was for wrongfully, and willfully terminating, and refusing to restore her phone service. She claimed punitive damages also, and alleged her injuries were loss of income, embarrassment, humiliation, and inconvenience. The telephone company answered, denied all, and asserted contributory negligence by Mrs. Skipper. On motion the latter defense was stricken. The verdict was for the telephone company. Mrs. Skipper moved for a new trial on the grounds that certain portions of the court's oral jury instruction were erroneous. The motion was denied.
May punitive damages be awarded only if there is actual injury which would authorize the jury to award compensatory damages?
The governing principle is that no damages, compensatory or punitive, may be awarded unless the jury finds there has been actual injury.
The oral jury instructions contained:
(emphasis added)
It also contained:
'In this particular case there have been no figures as to the actual damages. In other words, she has not come out and said 'I was done 'X' dollars worth of damage.' But she has testified that she had some type of communication--you heard the evidence--with her mother. She has alleged embarrassment, harassment and several other things in the Bill of Complaint. And if you are reasonably satisfied from the evidence in this case, from what you have heard, that this was a consequence of the willful and wanton negligence of the Telephone Company, in that event, you may find compensatory damages.
It also contained:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Leardi v. Brown
...in many jurisdictions, that where no actual harm is shown, no punitive damages may be awarded. See, e.g., Skipper v. South Cent. Bell Tel. Co., 334 So.2d 863, 865 (Ala.1976); Kluge v. O'Gara, 227 Cal.App.2d 207, 209, 38 Cal.Rptr. 607 (1964); Pringle Tax Serv. v. Knoblauch, 282 N.W.2d 151, 1......
-
Shoals Ford, Inc. v. McKinney
...Petroleum Corp., 421 So.2d 85 (Ala.1982); Gulf Atlantic Life Ins. Co. v. Barnes, 405 So.2d 916 (Ala.1981); Skipper v. South Central Bell Tel. Co., 334 So.2d 863 (Ala.1976); Rushing v. Hooper-McDonald, Inc., 293 Ala. 56, 300 So.2d 94 (1974); and Maring-Crawford Motor Co. v. Smith, 285 Ala. 4......
-
Industrial Chemical & Fiberglass Corp. v. North River Ins. Co.
...claim against a second insurance company for negligent failure to settle. The district court's reliance on Skipper v. South Central Bell Telephone Co., 334 So.2d 863, 865 (Ala.1976), and Alabama Power Co. v. Guy, 281 Ala. 583, 206 So.2d 594, 599 (1967), is misplaced. In Skipper, the court h......
-
Limbaugh v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.
...he has suffered an actual injury. Purcell Co. v. Spriggs Enterprises, Inc., 431 So.2d 515, 523 (Ala.1983); Skipper v. South Central Bell Telephone Co., 334 So.2d 863, 866 (Ala.1976). Actual injury need not be a pecuniary loss, however. Humiliation, embarrassment, harm to reputation and othe......