St. Martin v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co.

• Decision Date: 10 June 1915
• Citation: 94 A. 279,89 Conn. 405
• Parties: ST. MARTIN v. NEW YORK, N. H. & H. R. CO.
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court

94 A. 279

89 Conn. 405

ST. MARTIN

v. NEW YORK, N. H. & H. R. CO.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

June 10, 1915.

Appeal from Superior Court, Windham County; Joel H. Reed, Judge.

Action by Frank St. Martin against the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by negligence. There was a judgment for plaintiff for $4,000, and defendant appeals. Reversed, and new trial ordered.

William L. Barnett, of New Haven, for appellant. Charles A. Capen, of Willimantic, for appellee.

RORABACK, J. The complaint stated this case: The defendant company owns and operates a steam railroad extending from Willimantic to New Haven. While in the exercise of due care the plaintiff was injured when riding as a passenger on one of the defendant's trains from Willimantic to New Haven. His injuries were caused by a collision between the train on which he was riding and an engine standing on the defendant's tracks. This collision occurred by reason of the negligence of the employés of the defendant. In describing the nature of the plaintiff's injuries the plaintiff alleges that he "has suffered great physical and mental pain and anguish; been to great expense for medicine and medical care; was confined a long time in the Saint Joseph's Hospital in the said city of Willimantic; has been unable since the time of said accident to do any labor or attend to his usual vocation and duties of life and is permanently disabled from ever again performing the same."

Upon the trial of the case to the jury all the allegations of the plaintiff were admitted except the one relating to the plaintiff's injuries. This was denied.

The errors of which the defendant complains are based upon evidence received and the instructions of the court relative to mental pain and suffering.

Against the objections and exceptions of counsel for the defendant the following questions and answers are to be found in the record touching upon the plaintiff's mental condition after he was injured:

"Q. You go ahead, Mr. St. Martin, and tell what you worried about in the hospital. A. Well, when I was there I worried about myself, that is about my pain, that I couldn't get out; and of course I was thinking all the time about my wife being sick in Liberty Hill, and here I was laid up in Willimantic, and because 1 knowed when I left her she was very sick. * * * A. Well, I knowed that she was very sick; she couldn't never get better; she had to die. She was sick with consumption, and I had two young ones there, which was young, and I was the only support for them. So that left my wife and two young ones with my folks. My old mother took care of them. Otherwise I didn't have my mother, I didn't know who would take care of them. And I worried about them more than I did about myself, because it is natural for anybody to worry about his own family. And the only way that I can speak with her, my father was coming to see me at the time, and she used to send messages to me, and I would send back a message.

"The Court: Send what? A. Send a message to me, a few words. And when she was so bad that she thought that she was going to die, she sent through my father if I wanted to forgive her whatever we shall happen during the 10 years that we were married; and the only way that I could answer to her was the same way, to tell my father to ask her for me. But I had a secret that I wanted to tell my wife, and I couldn't tell. I couldn't tell nobody of it, and I daresn't tell even my father. I wanted to tell her that secret. I never had a chance to tell, and I have got it in my mind yet. I should like to tell it then. I was expecting to tell her that same night when I was hurt. I was intending to tell her that night. Q. Tell the circumstances when you saw her. A. Well, when I came out of the hospital my first thing was to find out where my wife was. Q. Excuse me, you knew she was dead? A. I knowed she was dead, for they came and told me the next day after she was dead—my father came and told me she was dead. Q. What you did? A. Well, after I got the number of the grave I went to the cemetery. That was about a month or so after I was out of the hospital, for when I first come out I couldn't get—I wasn't so that I could go, and I wanted to find the grave. So I went to Mr. Arnold, here, the stone cutter, and I ordered a headstone for her, which I had my name and her name and her age, and I had it set on the grave where it was designed; and two of my family, my father-in-law in particular, kept telling me that he knows where she was buried, only go by what people tell me, that's all. My father told me that he knows where she was buried."

In addition against the objection of the defendant, the plaintiff was also allowed to testify that:

"Q. Never mind. What are you worrying about? A. Well, my most worry is about I don't know but I shall be, or when I shall be, put in some—well, I might be termed a pauper and my young ones be parted from me. Any father will think of it. Anybody that raises a family will think that it is very hard to be parted from his young ones. I used to support my young ones once."

The doctrine allowing damages for mental anguish is subject to certain well-settled rules which to some extent restrict its operation. The rule which is most important is that no recovery can be had for the element of damage for consequences which are not the natural and proximate result of the act complained of.

While the precise question so presented has never been directly passed upon by this court, yet we find it stated in the case of Gibney v. Lewis, 68 Conn. 392, 36 Atl. 799:

"That mental suffering * * * may be an element of damages when it is a natural and proximate consequence of some recognized cause of action."

In describing what damages are recoverable for mental anguish, Sedgwick, in his work on Damages (9th Ed., vol. 1,...