Spigener v. Seaboard Air Line Ry.

• Decision Date: 28 January 1919
• Docket Number: 10142.
• Citation: 98 S.E. 330,111 S.C. 405
• Parties: SPIGENER ET AL. v. SEABOARD AIR LINE RY. ET AL.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

98 S.E. 330

111 S.C. 405

SPIGENER ET AL. v. SEABOARD AIR LINE RY. ET AL.

No. 10142.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

January 28, 1919

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Richland County; R. W Memminger, Judge.

Action by Sallie Glass Spigener and another against the Seaboard Air Line Railway and others. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Lyles & Lyles, of Columbia, for appellants.

Tompkins Barnett & McDonald, Barron, McKay, Frierson & Moffatt, and W H. Cobb, all of Columbia, for respondents.

FRASER J.

It will not be necessary to go into the minute details set out in the case. A general statement is enough in this court.

The plaintiff Mrs. Sallie Glass Spigener lived with her husband near Allendale, in this state. She formerly lived in Columbia, and Dr. Watson, of Columbia, has been her family physician all of her life. Mrs. Spigener was in delicate health and was under the care of Dr. Watson. In the afternoon of the 30th of May, 1916, Mrs. Spigener was taken sick, and, being apprehensive of a serious and dangerous attack, communicated, through her husband, over the phone, with Dr. Watson in Columbia. Dr. Watson advised that Mrs. Spigener be brought to Columbia immediately. The Southern train from Allendale to Columbia had already left, and plaintiffs found that there was a train on the Seaboard Railway that would pass Fairfax, a station on said road, about 8 o'clock p. m. Fairfax was about 18 miles away. Mr. J. Sims Spigener, one of the plaintiffs, Mr. Bryan, a neighbor of the plaintiffs, Mr. J. Victor Spigener, and a trained nurse went with Mrs. Spigener to Fairfax. The party arrived at Fairfax about 20 minutes before the train. Mr. J. Sims Spigener, the husband of Mrs. Spigener, bought three tickets to Columbia--one for Mrs. Spigener, one for the trained nurse, and one for himself. Mr. Spigener also asked for Pullman tickets for the three. The agent who sold the tickets for the railroad said he did not represent the Pullman Company, but the Pullman Company would sell the Pullman tickets on the train.

It seems that it is the rule at Fairfax for motor and other vehicles to stop on one side of the railroad track, while passengers embark and disembark on the other side. Mr. Spigener asked for, and obtained, permission from the railroad agent to run his automobile near to the passenger side of the railroad track. The reason given for this infraction of the ordinary rule was that the automobile contained a sick lady, and it was very desirable to get the car and its sick occupant as near the coach as practicable. When the train came it stopped, before it reached the station, at a water tank, and then moved up to the station; the Pullman, however, being some distance from the station. The agent of the railroad checked the plaintiffs trunk to Columbia. The plaintiffs had two suit cases, containing articles that would be necessary in the emergency. When the train stopped at the station, Mr. Spigener asked a train official about the Pullman. He was told that the Pullman was closed. Mr. Victor Spigener took the two suit cases and went back to the Pullman, which he found open, and put the suit cases on the Pullman. The train started, and the Pullman conductor told Mr. Victor Spigener to get on the Pullman, as the train was probably pulling the cars up further to the station. Finding, however, that the train was not going to stop, Mr. Spigener got off of the train. When the train arrived at the station, the agent, the defendant Brooks, went to the baggage car to superintend the taking off and putting on of the trunks. There is evidence that, when the flagman gave the signal to start the train, he was told that there was a sick lady to go on the train, and that the flagman or brakeman told the train conductor. The Pullman conductor promptly went forward to find the train conductor to inquire about his passengers. He found him and asked for his passengers. The train conductor told the Pullman conductor that there were no Pullman passengers. The Pullman conductor then told him of the two suit cases. There was evidence that the train was then in a "stone's throw" of the Fairfax station. The train conductor, the defendant Rhodes, replied, "If we have left any one, we will hear from it at Denmark." Denmark was an hour's ride away; two hours running backwards or a delay of three hours. There is testimony that Mrs. Spigener suffered great nervous shock when she found that she had been left, and continued to suffer intense bodily pain until she got to Columbia the next morning. Complaint was at once made to the station agent, who took up the matter with the head officials of the road. The only concession that was made was that, if the train could be stopped before it reached Denmark, it would go back to Fairfax for Mrs. Spigener. There is evidence that Mrs. Spigener lost an infant child by premature birth by reason of the delay, and that she received by reason of her sufferings serious injury to her physical and nervous constitution, which would be, in all probability, permanent. There was evidence that the defendant could, at small cost, have sent out an extra engine and coach from Savannah that would have taken Mrs. Spigener to Columbia, with only a reasonable delay. Nothing was done to relieve the situation, and Mrs. Spigener was required to go to a hotel and wait for the next train. This delayed her about six or seven hours.

This suit was brought against the railway, the station agent, the train conductor, and the Pullman Company.

At the close of the testimony, the defendant the Pullman Company moved for a direction of a verdict in its behalf. The plaintiffs consented, and the other defendants stated, "We are not interested in the motion," but stated that their position was that, because of notices given to the Pullman employés, it was claimed as one of the acts of negligence for which the Seaboard Air Line Railway was responsible to plaintiffs and the Seaboard Air Line Railway might be entitled to have the Pullman Company answer over to it.

The verdict was $20,000 for actual damages and $5,000 punitive damages against the Seaboard Air Line...