Trigg v. St. Louis, Kansas City & Northern Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 31 October 1881
• Parties: TRIGG v. THE ST. LOUIS, KANSAS CITY & NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

74 Mo. 147

TRIGG

v.THE ST. LOUIS, KANSAS CITY & NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1881.

Appeal from Ray Circuit Court.--HON. GEO. W. DUNN. Judge.

REVERSED.

Wells H. Blodgett for appellant.

Such damages as result from getting wet, catching cold or being made sick, are too remote to be allowed in an action on contract like this. Hobbs v. R'y Co., L. R., 10 Q. B. 111; P. P. Car Co. v. Barker, 4 Col. 344; s. c., 34 Am. Rep. 89; Francis v. Transfer Co., 5 Mo. App. 7. Anxiety and suspense of mind, effects upon her health, and danger from train being stopped an insufficient time, are not elements of damage, not being connected with any bodily injury, ( Canning v. Williamstown, 1 Cush. 451; Pierce Am. R. R. Law, 494; Indianapolis, etc., R. R. Co. v. Staples, 62 Ill. 313, 321; Johnson v. Wells, 6 Nev. 224; s. c., 3 Am. Rep. 245;) or with any circumstances of malice, insult or inhumanity. Indianapolis, etc., R'y Co. v. Birney, 71 Ill. 391. Plaintiff was entitled only to compensation for time lost and expense incurred in returning to her station. Walsh v. R'y Co., 42 Wis. 23; s. c., 24 Am. Rep. 376; Hamlin v. R'y Co., 1 Hurlst. & N. 408; 31 Mo. 243; 71 Ill. 391. The verdict is excessive. The case has in it no feature which is even suggestive of wanton, willful, malicious or intentional misconduct on the part of the defendant or its servants. Kansas City, etc., R. R. Co. v. Campbell, 62 Mo. 585; Kennedy v. R. R. Co., 36 Mo. 351.

James W. Black, Joseph E. Black and James L. Farris for respondent.

The amount of damages is not excessive, and the weight of evidence supporting the allegations of the petition and the issues presented, clearly shows that the jury were not influenced by prejudice or induced by fraud, or any other improper motive, to render the verdict returned by them. Graham v. R. R. Co., 66 Mo. 536; Kennedy v. R. R. Co., 36 Mo. 351; Stoneseifer v. Sheble, 31 Mo. 243; Steinberg v. Gebhardt, 41 Mo. 519; Goetz v. Ambs, 27 Mo. 28; Hicks v. R. R. Co., 68 Mo. 314, 329. The elements of damages were properly enumerated in the instruction given by the court. Kennedy v. R. R. Co., 36 Mo. 351; Hicks v. R. R. Co., 68 Mo. 329.

HOUGH, J.

In August, 1876, the plaintiff was at Norborne, in Carroll county, with her two children, one being four and the other between one and two years of age; and, desiring to go to Hardin, in Ray county, she purchased a ticket entitling her to be carried from Norborne to Hardin on one of defendant's passenger trains. The train she took was the defendant's west-bound day train between St Louis and Kansas City, which usually arrived at Hardin in the evening, between sundown and dark.

The material allegations of the petition are substantially as follows: “That she delivered her ticket to the conductor of the train, who was the agent of, and in the employ of, defendant; that said conductor had full knowledge that she was to get off at Hardin; that it was the duty of said conductor to stop said train at Hardin a sufficient length of time to permit plaintiff to get off at said station, but that, instead of stopping said train a reasonable length of time for plaintiff to get off at said station, he carelessly and negligently started almost instantly upon stopping, and gave no assistance to plaintiff to get off; that she was not able to get off, and was exposed to great danger by the starting of the train, encumbered as she was with her children and baggage, and that, in consequence thereof, she was carried to Richmond and Lexington Junction, in the county of Ray, about six miles from said station of Hardin.”

The defendant's answer denied all negligence on its part, and averred that it was in consequence of plaintiff's own negligence that she failed to get off said train at Hardin station.

The facts developed at the trial were as follows: When the train arrived at Hardin, the plaintiff, being encumbered with considerable baggage and two small children, got to the platform of the car and handed out her baggage, but before she could hand one of her children to the person who was there to help her off, the train started. The brakeman, seeing her situation, and thinking she was about to step off while the train was in motion, stepped in front of her and prevented her from doing so. This, he says, he did, because he thought she would fall under the train with her children. The brakeman then pulled the bell-cord to give the engineer a signal to stop, but the bell-cord was caught, so that the engineer did not get the signal. By that time the conductor had arrived, and, finding out the trouble, he sent the brakeman through the train to tell the engineer to stop; but, by the time the brakeman got to the engineer, and the engineer had stopped the train, it was some distance from the depot. The conductor then asked plaintiff if she would get off there, and she said she would not, and demanded that he should take her back to the depot at Hardin; the conductor testified that he told her that, after passing over the road, he had no right to go back, and that he was afraid to do so, for fear of running into something.

The testimony of the plaintiff, on this point, was as follows: “After a few moments the conductor came back to me and said: ‘We have carried you past your station--what will you do about it?’ I said: ‘You will have to carry me back.’ He said: ‘He could not do it,’ and turned off. I thought he spoke very sharp. After we had gone to the trestle-work below the town, the train stopped and the conductor said: ‘We will put you off here.’ I said: ‘No; if you had stopped within a reasonable distance, I would have got off.’ It was then night. He then said: ‘I cannot do any better than to carry you on to the Junction.’ I said: ‘If that is the best you can do, you will have to carry me there.” The conductor then told her that they would soon be at the Junction, and that when they got there, he would have the porter come and carry her child to the waiting-room, and that he would meet her there. The conductor went to the waiting-room and asked her what was to be done; and she said he would have to get a conveyance to take her back to Hardin, and thereupon the conductor went and got a light spring wagon in which to carry her back, but she refused to go in it, saying she wanted a “hack.” The conductor told her he could get nothing better than the spring wagon. Mr. Hughes, a by-stander, then advised her to go back on the freight train, but the conductor told her the freight train was behind time, and advised her to go back in the morning on the passenger. The conductor then took her and her children to the dining-room, and gave them, as she says, a good supper, for which he paid. He then told the landlady to give them a good room, and she gave them the best in the house, for which he also paid. He then gave the plaintiff fifty cents with which to pay her fare back to Hardin, which was only six miles from Junction, and went on with his train....