Southern Ry. Co. v. Nowlin

• Decision Date: 30 June 1908
• Citation: 156 Ala. 222,47 So. 180
• Parties: SOUTHERN RY. CO. v. NOWLIN.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

47 So. 180

156 Ala. 222

SOUTHERN RY. CO. v. NOWLIN.

Supreme Court of Alabama

June 30, 1908

Rehearing Denied July 3, 1908.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; A. A. Coleman, Judge.

Action by Josephine Nowlin against the Southern Railway Company for negligent failure to inform her as to the best and quickest route of travel. Judgment for plaintiff for $1,500, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Simpson and Anderson, JJ., dissenting in part.

The complaint was in the following language: "Plaintiff claims of defendants $1,999 as damages, for that heretofore to wit, on the 16th day of June, 1904, defendant was a common carrier of passengers for hire and reward by means of trains upon railways, and defendant and companies with connecting lines of railway were engaged in the business of common carriers of passengers from Birmingham, Ala., to Lumberton N. C., and there were two routes over which a passenger could travel by rail from said Birmingham to said Lumberton, over a part of both of which routes defendant operated trains for the carriage of passengers; that at said time defendant maintained in said Birmingham an office for the purpose among others, of giving information to intending passengers in reference to routes of travel, and plaintiff, not knowing the best and quickest routes of travel from said Birmingham to said Lumberton, and being in delicate health, through her agent, proposing that plaintiff travel from said Birmingham to said Lumberton over one or the other of said routes, over either of which plaintiff would be defendant's passenger at least part of the way, inquired of defendant at its said office in said Birmingham the best and quickest route from said Birmingham to said Lumberton, and in connection with said inquiry informed defendant of the said condition of her health. It therefore became and was defendant's duty to plaintiff to use due diligence to correctly inform plaintiff as to said route; but, notwithstanding said duty, defendant at said office told plaintiff, through her said agent, that the route via Asheville, N. C., was the quickest and best route to said Lumberton, and, acting upon what defendant so told plaintiff, she did purchase a ticket from the common agent of the defendant and other railways for passage over said route via Asheville, a part of the purchase price of which moved to the defendant, and did on, to wit, the 16th day of June, 1904, and the succeeding day, travel over said route, over a part of which route she was carried by defendant as its passenger, and over another part or parts by connections of defendant's railway. Plaintiff avers that said route via Asheville, N. C., was not the best and quickest route to said Lumberton from said Birmingham, but was slower and less desirable than another route, to wit, the route via Atlanta, Ga.; and plaintiff avers that as a proximate consequence of going by the said route via Asheville she was greatly delayed in her journey, was required to change cars a great number of times, to wit, four times, was carried by freight train or mixed train a long distance, to wit, 100 miles, was compelled to stand upon her feet for a long time, was greatly shaken by the rough or irregular movements of the train, and, being in delicate health, said condition of her health was greatly aggravated she was made sore and sick, suffered great mental and physical pain, lost much time, her health and physical stamina were greatly and permanently impaired, and she was put to great trouble, inconvenience, and expense for medicine, medical attention, care, and nursing in or about her efforts to heal and cure her said wounds and...