Southern Ry. Co. v. Daughdrill

• Decision Date: 02 October 1912
• Docket Number: 3,772.
• Citation: 75 S.E. 925,11 Ga.App. 603
• Parties: SOUTHERN RY. CO. v. DAUGHDRILL.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

75 S.E. 925

11 Ga.App. 603

SOUTHERN RY. CO. v. DAUGHDRILL.

No. 3,772.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

October 2, 1912

Syllabus by the Court.

A common carrier, who undertakes and agrees to convey a passenger by a definite route and under certain conditions must comply with its contract or be liable for any damages consequent upon its breach. If, after full explanation of the peculiar circumstances and with full knowledge of the reasons why the proposed purchaser of the ticket desires the information, the ticket agent of a common carrier contracts with a passenger to convey him by a particular route, or under certain specified conditions as to connections, the contract must be performed, notwithstanding the performance of the contract may require the carrier to change, for a time, a rule usually followed in the operation of its trains provided the change is not in violation of law or of any rule of the Railroad Commission, or upon breach of the contract the passenger may recover any damages he may have sustained by reason of the breach.

The evidence authorized a recovery for pain and suffering, and the instructions of the court upon that point are not subject to exception or criticism.

The evidence authorized a finding in favor of the plaintiff, and after the verdict was voluntarily reduced by her, there was no error in refusing a new trial.

(Additional Syllabus by Editorial Staff.)

Where an agent of a carrier assured the purchaser of a ticket that his wife could take a certain designated train and be conveyed to her home without inconvenience, other than in merely changing cars with a wait of only a few minutes, the words on the ticket, "continuous passage," do not import an agreement that the passenger shall be carried without any stop or change of cars, but indicate that the agent might have had the authority to issue a ticket for such a passage as he assured the purchaser could be had.

When an injury can be traced directly to a tortious act, and but for this tortious act it could not reasonably be supposed that the injury would have resulted, this essentially antecedent act may be said to be the "proximate cause" of the injury.

Error from City Court of Atlanta; H. M. Reid, Judge.

Action by L. M. Daughdrill against the Southern Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.

McDaniel & Black, of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.

Hewlett & Dennis, of Atlanta, and I. F. Mundy, of Rockmart, for defendant in error.

RUSSELL J.

The defendant in error brought a suit against the Southern Railway Company, alleging that on April 28, 1910, she purchased from the carrier a continuous trip ticket from Gainesville to Rockmart, Georgia; that when she reached Atlanta and prepared to change cars, the agent of the plaintiff in error refused to allow her to take its train, which left Atlanta at 5:10 p. m., and insisted that she could not take that train, because it did not stop at Rockmart. The petition alleged that before the ticket was purchased the plaintiff's husband informed the company's agent at Gainesville that his wife was not at all well, and that if she had to wait in Atlanta he would accompany her. After the agent of the railroad company in Atlanta told her that she could not take the train, she became very much excited and humiliated. She was in a strange city, without friends, acquaintances, or money to pay hotel bills or other expenses. The agent informed her that perhaps she could catch the Seaboard Air Line train, which left the Union Station in five minutes' time. She caught a cab, and went to the Union Station, and caught this train; but when she had gotten upon the Seaboard Air Line train she virtually collapsed from the excitement and shock to her nerves. She went to bed immediately upon her arrival at Rockmart, and was confined to her bed for a week, and continued to suffer for almost a year, from the effect of her excitement and nervousness.

The plaintiff proved her case substantially as laid. The evidence of her husband was that he and his wife were in Gainesville and she intended to go to Rockmart. She was in very bad health, very nervous, and easily excited. He went to the agent of the Southern Railway Company at Gainesville and inquired what connections could be made going from Gainesville to Rockmart. He explained fully to the agent why he wanted to know, and that, if his wife was subject to a "lay-over" in Atlanta, he would come as far as Atlanta with her, if she were to be delayed for any length of time. The agent told him that his wife could take the evening train (she had first intended to go on the morning train), and go right on through to Rockmart; that she would have only a few minutes to wait in Atlanta, and would be transferred in the same car shed. He thereupon told the agent that his wife would wait until the evening train and that he would not go with her. The witness testified that he told the agent that his wife was not well, and that if she had to lay over in Atlanta, or if she had to make any transfer across town, or anything of that kind, he would come with her; and after the agent's assurance that his wife would only have to wait a few minutes and be transferred in the same car shed, he communicated these facts to his wife. The plaintiff testified that her husband told her she would make a continuous trip; that she would only have to wait a few minutes in Atlanta; that upon her arrival in Atlanta she went to the information window and asked what time she could get a train out to Rockmart. The agent told her there would be a train passing along in a few minutes, but that this train did not stop at Rockmart, and that she could not get on it. She told him she was sick and wanted to get to Rockmart, and he informed her that she would then have to go to the Seaboard Air Line Railway and go down on its train, and that she only had five minutes to catch the train, but possibly it might be late. He asked to see her ticket, and, after looking at it, said "this is a continuous ticket, but you cannot go there until about 12 o'clock to-night." The plaintiff testified that the agent's statement frightened her and made her very nervous, because she had no money. She was sick, and knew she had no money to pay hotel fare or have a doctor, and thought she was going to be obliged to stay there; that she had no funds at all, and knew no one at all in the city of Atlanta. She further testified that she had traveled but little by herself; that she usually traveled with her husband. Upon the agent's statement that, while she had only five minutes to catch the Seaboard Air Line train, perhaps she could get a hack and catch the train, because it might be late, she got a hack and went over to the other depot. She was not really able to be up, but she had to be up, because she knew she had to go somewhere. She testified that as a result of the excitement she was prostrated when she boarded the Seaboard Air Line train; that she went home and went to bed, and was in bed the rest of the week. She suffered from a cessation of her menstruation, and was weak and nervous for a long time. There was testimony to the effect that the plaintiff's usual weight was from 140 to 148 pounds, and...