Turner v. Southern Ry.

• Decision Date: 10 August 1906
• Citation: 54 S.E. 825,75 S.C. 58
• Parties: TURNER v. SOUTHERN RY.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

54 S.E. 825

75 S.C. 58

TURNER v. SOUTHERN RY.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

August 10, 1906

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Cherokee County; Klugh Judge.

Action by R. M. Turner against the Southern Railway. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Reversed.

C. P Sanders, for appellant. Butler & Osborne, for respondent.

WOODS J.

The plaintiff alleged in her complaint the loss by the defendant of her trunk and its contents, which the defendant had undertaken to carry for her as a passenger on its road from Salisbury, N. C., to Memphis, Tenn. In addition to the value of the trunk and the wearing apparel which constituted its contents, the plaintiff sought to recover for "the trouble, annoyance, worry, and expense" in trying to locate the trunk and in communicating with the defendant about it, in being deprived of the use of the trunk and its contents, and in having to purchase other wearing apparel. The motion made to strike out all allegations of the complaint referring to the claim for trouble, annoyance worry, and expense was granted by consent as to annoyance and worry, but refused as to trouble and expense incurred as above set forth. The charge to the jury as to defendant's liability for such trouble and expense was in accordance with this ruling. The jury found a verdict for $360 the entire amount claimed, which necessarily included $150 claimed on account of trouble and expense, in addition to the value of the baggage. The question made by appeal is whether in case of complete loss of baggage, no previous notice being given to the carrier of special circumstances, the recovery would be limited to the actual value, without taking into the account any expense or trouble incurred in the effort to recover it or in being deprived of its use or in purchasing other apparel. The general rule is that the carrier is liable for the value only, not necessarily, however, the market value, but the value of such property for the use of the owner. 99 Am. St. Rep. 385, note; Fairfax v. R. R. Co. (N. Y.) 29 Am. Rep. 119; Houston & R. R. Co. v. Seale (Tex. Civ. App.) 67 S.W. 437; Cooney v. Pullman Co. (Ala.) 25 So. 712, 53 L. R. A. 690; 3 Am. & Eng. Ency. 584; 6 Cyc. 676.

This is the application to loss of baggage of the general rule recognized in this state, that the measure of damages for loss of goods by a carrier is their value at the place of destination. Wallingford v. R. R. Co., 26 S.C. 268 2 S.E. 19. The case of Nettles v. R. R. Co., 7 Rich. Law, 190, 62 Am. Dec. 409, has been referred to as controlling authority for the proposition that in case of loss of goods the owner may recover, not only the value of goods, but any other loss or expense occasioned by the failure to deliver. The court does say in that case: "The defendants were by the contract, which, as common carriers, they made...