St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co. v. Clark

• Decision Date: 07 October 1924
• Docket Number: Case Number: 13930
• Citation: 104 Okla. 24,229 P. 779,1924 OK 881
• Parties: ST. LOUIS-SAN FRANCISCO RY. CO. v. CLARK.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

1924 OK 881

229 P. 779

104 Okla. 24

ST. LOUIS-SAN FRANCISCO RY. CO. v. CLARK.

Case Number: 13930

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: October 7, 1924

Syllabus

¶0 1. Damages--Exemplary Damages--General and Special Damages--Notice.

In an action for damages under section 5975, Comp. Stat. 1921, it makes no difference whether the damages resulting from the wrongful act be considered general or special as long as it appears from the pleadings and evidence that the injury was the direct and natural result of the wrongful act and without reference to the special character, condition, or circumstances of the person wronged, and in such case no special notice is necessary.

2. Evidence -- Opinions--Personal Injuries and Relief--Competency of Plaintiff.

The plaintiff is competent to testify as to his relief from pain under treatment in a hospital whether a physician or not, and such testimony is competent and material where the facts of physical suffering are drawn into question on the issue of physical injury by delay in reaching the hospital for treatment.

3. Damages--Recovery for Mental Anguish.

Where wrong has been committed against the person accompanied by wanton insult and consequent humiliation, such pain and anguish may be in the nature of physical injury and is a question of fact for the jury.

4. Same--Recovery of Interest.

The damages referred to in section 5973 Comp. Stat. 1921, subject to interest in the discretion of the jury, refer to "damages certain, or capable of being made certain by calculation," as provided for in section 5972, Comp. Stat. 1921, and the interest provided for in the two sections has no application to damages for personal injuries or punitive damages mentioned in section 5975, Comp. stat. 1921.

5. Same--Instruction--Harmless Error.

In an action for damages for personal injuries and exemplary damages it is error for the court to instruct the jury that interest may be given on any damages awarded in case of oppression, fraud or malice, but where such instruction is given and the jury returns a verdict for a sum certain named as actual damages and a sum certain named as exemplary damages and make no mention of interest and the damages so found by the jury are within the limits asked for by plaintiff, the error is harmless.

6. Appeal and Error--Discretion of Court--Reopening Case. After the parties have rested the case, it is within the sound and reasonable discretion of the court to allow the cause opened for further testimony, and such discretion will be approved on appeal without it is made to appear the same was abused.

W. F. Evans Stuart, Sharp & Cruce, and Ben Franklin, for plaintiff in error.

J. J. Smith and A. W. Turner, for defendant in error.

THREADGILL, C.

¶1 This action was brought by the defendant in error, plaintiff below, against the plaintiff in error, defendant below, to recover damages for personal injuries caused by the wrongful acts of the plaintiff in error, and the parties will be referred to herein as they appeared in the trial court. The facts, briefly stated, were substantially as follows. The plaintiff was a disabled soldier and was ordered by medical authority to the hospital at Houston, Tex., for treatment, and for this purpose the United States furnished him an order or requisition for transportation by railroad from Miami, Okla., his home town, to Houston, Tex., which he presented to the ticket agent of defendant in its depot in Miami on April 29, 1920, asking for a ticket. There were several persons applying for tickets to various parts of the state at the same time. The train was almost due and there was only one train a day through to Houston, Tex. Plaintiff had some trouble in getting correction made in the requisition that caused him to be late in reaching the depot. He presented his request at the ticket window about 7:20 p. m. and the train was due at 7:45. The agent asked him why he did not come earlier and he explained his delay. The agent informed him that he could not issue the ticket required before the train came, and that he would not delay the train, and also stated that he had to issue other tickets, and he dropped out of line and in a few minutes entered the line again and made a second request for a ticket. He was dressed as a soldier and he informed the agent it was necessary for him to make the trip at once, that he was ordered to the hospital for treatment, and the agent refused to consider his application, and some hard words passed between them and the agent denounced him, using vile words, and told him to take his order and "get the hell out of the depot." Plaintiff was highly nervous, suffering with heart and lung trouble, caused by gas at the battle front in France. He went out of the depot and started to his home in Miami. The train came after his altercation with the agent and after he left the depot. The agent laid the matter before the conductor and the conductor agreed to hold the train until the ticket could be issued. They sent a small boy to find the plaintiff and he found him some distance from the depot on his way home and informed him that the agent wanted to see him, but he refused to return to see the agent and it does not appear that he was informed or knew why he was sent for. He applied the next evening at the same place for a ticket on the same order and was accorded consideration and courtesy from a different ticket agent, and received the ticket and made the trip to Houston, and was given medical treatment and relieved of his great suffering. He asks for $ 500 damages for his physical injuries caused by the delay of 24 hours, and $ 2,000 exemplary damages for the wrongful treatment of the agent in denouncing him, insulting him, and ordering him away from the place. The cause was tried to a jury in April, 1922, and resulted in a verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of $ 500 actual and $ 1,000 exemplary damages, and the defendant appealed by petition in error and case-made, assigning numerous errors, but urging them under four general propositions, which we will consider in the same order as laid out and discussed in the briefs of the parties.

¶2 Defendant's first proposition is as follows:

"The verdict of the jury is not sustained by sufficient evidence and is contrary to law and in disregard of the court's instructions."

¶3 The defendant in laying out the plan in discussion under this proposition states:

"The court's instructions permitted the jury if they found the evidence justified to assess damages against the defendant:

"1. For physical injury suffered by plaintiff for an additional period of twenty-four hours more than he would have suffered but for the failure, neglect and refusal of defendant to furnish him a ticket.

"2. Mental anguish, pain and humiliation suffered by the plaintiff in connection with said physical injury.

"3. Exemplary damages."

¶4 1. Defendant contends that if plaintiff did suffer physical injury by the delay of 24 hours in making the trip, in order to make the defendant liable it was necessary for defendant to have notice or knowledge of plaintiff's condition at the time the ticket was applied for, and the record shows that the court instructed the jury to this effect, and defendant contends there was no evidence of notice or knowledge. We have examined the record of the evidence and we think it is clear that the agent understood that the plaintiff was a wounded soldier, sick and suffering, and trying to get to the government hospital for treatment. One witness heard him say to the agent "that he was a wounded soldier and was starting to the hospital and that it was very necessary." The witness was so impressed with the situation that he said to the agent "that he is a soldier and I will be perfectly willing to wait." The facts and circumstances are sufficient basis for the court's instruction and sufficient to sustain the verdict of the jury on this point. We do not think it makes any difference in this particular class of cases whether the damages resulting from the wrongful act be considered general or special if it appears that the injury was the direct and natural result of such wrongful act, and without reference to the special character, condition, or circumstances of the person wronged. 8 R. C. L. 429-430, lays down the rule as follows:

"Actual damages are either general or special. General damages are those which naturally and necessarily result from the wrongful act or omission, that is to say, those which are traceable to, and the probable and necessary result of the injury, or which the law implies or presumes to have accrued from the wrong complained of. Though they are frequently spoken of as necessarily resulting from the wrong, this does not mean that they are such only as must a-priori, inevitably, and always result therefrom. It is enough if, in the particular instance, they do in fact result from the wrong directly and proximately, and without reference to the special character, condition or circumstances of the person wronged. The law then, as a matter of course, implies or presumes them as the effect which in the particular instance necessarily results from the wrong."

¶5 In the case at bar the plaintiff was a soldier, as shown by his uniform, was sick and suffering, and was ordered by medical authority to the government hospital at Houston, Tex., for treatment, and had a requisition for railroad transportation, and made application to the ticket agent for ticket, and informed the agent of his condition and that it was necessary for him to go on the train which was then about due, and from the facts and circumstances it was apparent that a delay of 24 hours would result in suffering and physical injury to the plaintiff, and such injury would be the natural and proximate result of the delay, and we think that the case comes within the purview of the rule above stated, and as amplified and supported by the following decisions: St. Louis & S. F. Ry....