St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co. v. Pearson
| Decision Date | 23 November 1908 |
| Citation | 114 S.W. 211,88 Ark. 200 |
| Parties | ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY v. PEARSON |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, Second Division; Edward W Winfield, Judge; reversed.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
S. H West and Bridges, Wooldridge & Gantt, for appellant.
1. It was error to submit the question of punitive damages to the jury. "The element of willfulness or conscious indifference to consequences, from which malice may be inferred, is lacking." 53 Ark. 7; 78 Ark. 331; 87 Ark 123; 80 Ark. 260.
2. As to Newson, there was no actual damage, as appears by the verdict. Where there is no actual damage sustained, punitive damages are not recoverable. 12 Am. & Eng. Enc. of L. (2 Ed.), 29; 13 Cyc. 109. See also 84 Ark. 42.
J. H. Harrod, for appellees.
J. L. Newson and R. P. Pearson were school teachers, teaching school at Hunter, Arkansas. On Friday, the 9th of August, they bought from the station agent at Hunter tickets to Fair Oaks and return. They boarded the train of the appellant railroad company on their return, at Fair Oaks, on the night of August 11th. The train which they boarded did not make a regular stop at Hunter, and the auditor so informed them when he took up their tickets, but they said they did not know that fact, and asked the auditor as an accommodation to stop for them. After consulting the conductor, the auditor agreed to do so, and, according to the plaintiff's statements, about a minute afterwards the conductor called "Hunter!" and the auditor said, They say the train stopped, and they at once went forward and got off, in the presence of the conductor, auditor and brakeman. They thought they were at Hunter, and got off on the side opposite from the depot because they lived upon that side, and did not know they were not at Hunter until the train had moved. As a matter of fact, they were three miles and a quarter from Hunter. This occurred at 11:20 at night, and they walked into Hunter. Pearson was made ill for a day and incurred a doctor's bill, and Newsom fell off the dump some eight or ten feet when he got off the train. They brought suit against the railroad company, and their suits were consolidated and tried together. The above is a summary of the testimony which they gave.
The trainmen denied that such an occurrence took place as that related by the plaintiffs, in regard to their being notified that they had reached Hunter and their getting off the train in the presence of the conductor, auditor and brakeman, and said that they did not know the plaintiffs were off the train until the train reached Hunter, where it stopped for their accommodation and for no other purpose; and that the conductor and auditor went through the train, looking for them, but failed to find them, and that they then learned for the first time of their having got off. There was also testimony that the train had not stopped after leaving Fair Oaks until it reached Hunter, but that it had slowed down before reaching there on account of some cattle on the track. Hunter is a village containing five or six stores and five or six hundred people.
The court gave instructions which in effect authorized the plaintiffs to recover, if the jury believed their testimony, for actual damages; and also gave an instruction authorizing recovery for punitive damages if the jury found that the employees in charge of the train, knowing it had not arrived at Hunter, caused the plaintiffs to leave the train at a late hour in the night, out in the woods away from any station, by representing to them that the train had arrived at that place.
The jury returned a verdict in favor of Pearson for $ 10 actual damages and $ 75 punitive damages, and in favor of Newsom for $ 75 punitive damages and no actual damages. The railroad company has appealed.
If the plaintiff's testimony is true--and, the jury having accepted it, it must be so treated in this court--they were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
St. Louis Southwestern Railway v. Owings
...405; 60 Id. 550; 114 Id. 224; 89 Id. 326; 87 Id. 443; 90 Id. 398. 3. The verdict for punitive damages is not sustained by any evidence. 88 Ark. 200; 53 Id. 7; 77 109; 104 Id. 89; 87 Id. 127; 78 Id. 331. No malice or wilful, wanton or conscious indifference to consequences was shown. Rhea P.......
-
Greer v. White
...willful and gross negligence. 84 Ark. 241; 56 Ark. 609; 39 Ark. 393; 67 Ark. 388; 53 Ark. 10; 80 Ark. 262; 77 Ark. 114; 41 Ark. 297; 88 Ark. 200. entitled to recover at all, appellee ought to recover compensatory damages only. 39 Ark. 387. 2. The court erred in instructing the jury as a mat......
-
St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company v. Smith
...was sufficient evidence to sustain the jury's findings, and they will not be disturbed on appeal. 125 Ark. 314; 88 Ark. 164; 92 Ark. 569; 88 Ark. 200; 110 Ark. 632; 96 405. Sec. 879, C. & M. Digest, does not authorize eviction for nonpayment of the half fare authorized to be charged for a c......
-
Hopper v. State
...testimony of a witness is to be believed. 19 Ark. 684. Where evidence is accepted as true by the jury it must be so treated by this court. 88 Ark. 200. The weight of evidence and credibility the witness is for the jury. 121 Ark. 45; 216 S.W. 1054. There was no error in allowing Cockrum to e......