St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Taylor

• Decision Date: 08 July 1907
• Parties: ST. LOUIS, I. M. & S. RY. CO. v. TAYLOR.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

104 S.W. 551

ST. LOUIS, I. M. & S. RY. CO. v. TAYLOR.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

July 8, 1907.

Appeal from Circuit Court, White County; Hance N. Hutton, Judge.

Action by W. L. Taylor against the St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed.

This is an action instituted by W. L. Taylor against the St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company to recover damages alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff on account of the willful and wrongful act of a servant of the defendant. The facts relied on by the plaintiff to sustain a recovery are substantially as follows: The plaintiff was a traveling salesman for a wholesale dry goods firm, and carried on his trip a number of sample trunks, weighing in the aggregate more than the amount allowed free to passengers. He made a trip to Judsonia, Ark., a station on the line of defendant's railroad, in the course of his business, and when he was ready to depart from the town on defendant's train he got into a controversy with defendant's station agent at that place concerning the weighing and checking of his baggage. The agent at first refused to check the baggage because the time was short before the arrival of the train, and, when the plaintiff threatened to report him, he told plaintiff to "report and be damned," called him a "thief," "a dirty cur," and other vile names, and, after the plaintiff struck him with an umbrella, picked up a gun in a threatening attitude toward plaintiff. He made no attempt, however, to shoot, and the plaintiff sustained no physical injuries in the encounter. The agent afterwards checked the baggage, and the plaintiff departed with his baggage on the train he had intended to take. The only kinds of injury set forth in the complaint, or which the testimony tends to show, are mental anguish and humiliation resulting from the insulting remarks made by the station agent. The court gave the following, among other, instructions, over the objections of the defendant: "If the jury believe from the evidence that the plaintiff went to the depot of defendant company for the purpose of taking passage on its train, and at the time he had a mileage ticket for his passage and an excess baggage ticket, and exhibited the same to the agent, Ford, then he was entitled to all the privileges and protection of a passenger, and it was the duty of the defendant company, through its agent, Ford, to treat him civilly, politely, and if you believe from the testimony that, when the plaintiff went to the depot, he had a mileage ticket and excess baggage ticket, and presented the same to the agent, and that he intended to take passage on the defendant's train, and the agent, Ford, treated him in an insulting manner, by imputing to him dishonest conduct, and otherwise willfully, wantonly, or maliciously insulted or assaulted him, then the plaintiff is entitled to recover, and in arriving at damages to which he is entitled you should allow him a fair pecuniary compensation for such damages as were the direct consequence of the act complained of, for any mental excitement, anguish of mind, sense of shame and humiliation, if any, which he may have suffered by reason of the wrongful conduct of the agent, Ford." The court also refused to instruct the jury, as requested by the defendant, that there could be no recovery for mental anguish, shame, and humiliation resulting from the insults offered. Plaintiff recovered judgment below for the sum of $4,500 damages, and the defendant appealed.

T. M. Mehaffy and J. E. Williams, for appellant. J. W. & M. House, for appellee.

McCULLOCH, J. (after stating the facts as above).

Many questions are presented in the record for our consideration, but the controlling one, for the purpose of disposing of this case here, is whether or not the plaintiff is entitled, under the circumstances shown in the case, to recover damages for mental anguish and humiliation, unaccompanied by physical injury. The evidence shows sufficiently to warrant a finding that the station agent of the railway company, while the plaintiff was in the station for the purpose of having his baggage checked preparatory to taking passage on the train, and while he was conferring with said agent concerning the checking of his baggage, willfully and without provocation insulted him by the use of profane, threatening and defamatory language. We do not determine whether the plaintiff should be held, under the circumstances, to be a passenger in the sense that the railway company owed him the same duty of protection from willful acts of its servants that it owes to passengers on trains. We prefer to dispose of the questions of the defendant's liability for the mental suffering and humiliation as elements of damages, disconnected from any physical injury, on the broader ground, treating the plaintiff, for the purpose of testing this question, as a passenger in the most complete sense.

The precise question involved has never been determined by this court. In Railway v. Wilson, 70 Ark. 136, 66 S. W. 661, the question was mentioned, but expressly reserved for decision; the court saying: "It is certain there could be no recovery for mental anguish unaccompanied by personal injury, where there was no willful, wanton, or malicious wrong done. Whether there could be recovery for mental suffering alone we reserve for decision." In the Peay Case, 64 Ark. 538, 43 S. W. 965, 39 L. R. A. 463, the court held with respect to the liability of a telegraph company for negligent failure to promptly transmit and deliver a message that there could be no recovery for mental anguish independent of and disconnected from a physical injury. And in Davis v. Richardson, 76 Ark. 348, 89 S. W. 318, we held that there could be no recovery of damages by a female from an individual for mental anguish on account of an indecent proposal made to her. The court said in the opinion that mental suffering and humiliation are not elements of damages, citing the Peay Case. In Railway Co. v. Anderson, 67 Ark. 123, 53 S. W. 673, the court held that in an action by a passenger to recover damages for being wrongfully carried...