St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co. v. Knight

• Citation: 88 S.W. 1035,77 Ark. 20
• Parties: ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY v. KNIGHT
• Decision Date: 22 July 1905
• Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas

88 S.W. 1035

77 Ark. 20

ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY v. KNIGHT

Supreme Court of Arkansas

July 22, 1905

Appeal from Prairie Circuit Court, Southern District; GEORGE M CHAPLINE, Judge; Reversed.

STATEMENT BY THE COURT.

This is an action by S. H. Knight against the St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company for being put off the train away from the station to which he wished to go. The facts are briefly as follows: On the 4th day of March, 1902, S. H. Knight purchased a ticket from the St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company to go from Stuttgart to Ulm, a station on the railroad of that company seven miles north of Stuttgart. He paid 21 cents for the ticket, and boarded the northbound passenger train about 3 o'clock in the afternoon. By some mistake the train did not stop at Ulm, but, so soon as Knight discovered that the train was passing the station to which he desired to go, he notified the conductor and brakeman, who stopped the train about a mile and a half north of Ulm. Knight asked the conductor to take him back to the station. The conductor refused to do so, but told him he would carry him on, and let him come back on the next train. The conductor testified that he notified Knight that the next train would bring him back to Ulm in about two hours, but Knight says that he did not do so, and that he declined to be carried to the next station for the reason that, as the time for the other train to have gone south was already past, he supposed that it had already gone, and that if he went further he would not get to Ulm until the next day. He stated that he was not in good health, and that it was raining, but that, as his horse and buggy were at Ulm waiting for him, he chose to get off the train and walk back. He testified that he got wet, and was made sick with la grippe, and suffered several days from the effect of the exposure.

The court gave the jury the following instruction on the measure of damages:

"If you find for the plaintiff, you may consider, in estimating his damages, the delay caused by being carried by his station, the time and trouble or inconvenience of walking back to the station, exposure to the weather, if you find it was bad, the injury to his health, if any, caused by such exposure, medical expense, if any caused thereby, and humiliation he might have undergone by such treatment, caused by such wrongful acts of defendant's agents in carrying him by his station."

To the giving of which exceptions were at the time saved.

The jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff for the sum of $ 150, and the court gave judgment accordingly. Defendant appealed.

Judgment reversed.

Sam H West and J. C. Hawthorne, for appellant.

Appellee could not recover for exposure, sickness or medical attention. 18 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 254; 74 Mo. 147; 78 Mo. 610; 71 Ill. 391; 54 Ark. 431; 1 S.W. 269. The instruction upon the elements of damage was error. 6 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 341; 5 Mo.App. 7; 1 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 263.

W. W Bandy, for appellee.

OPINION

RIDDICK, J., (after stating the facts).

This is an appeal by the railway company...