W.U. Tel. Co. v. Taylor

• Decision Date: 01 November 1927
• Citation: 94 Fla. 841,114 So. 529
• Court: Florida Supreme Court
• Parties: WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO. v. TAYLOR et al.

114 So. 529

94 Fla. 841

WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO. v. TAYLOR et al.

Florida Supreme Court, Division B.

November 1, 1927

Error to Circuit Court, Taylor County; Hal W. Adams, Judge.

Action by Myrtle H. Taylor and husband against the Western Union Telegraph Company. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant brings error.

Reversed and a new trial awarded.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

Telegraph company, negligently transmitting message, is liable for damages arising naturally or reasonably supposed to have been in contemplation of parties. The rule in Hadley v Baxendale, 9 Exchequer Reports 341, for the recovery of damages where a contract is breached, has been extended by this court to actions against elegraph companies for negligently transmitting or delivering telegraph messages.

Before enactment of mental anguish statute, telegraph companies were, as at common law, liable for damages naturally and proximately resulting from negligence (Rev. Gen. St. 1920, § 4388). Prior to the enactment of section 4388, Revised General Statutes of Florida, mental anguish resulting from the negligent transmission or delivery of a telegraph message was not an element of damage for which recovery could be had. Telegraph companies were, however, as at common law, liable for such damages as naturally and proximately flow or result from their negligent failure to transmit and deliver any message placed in their hands for transmission.

Telegram need not disclose all details of transaction, nor particular business intended, and parties need not have contemplated actual damages allowable (Rev. Gen. St. 1920, § 4388). It is not essential that the message disclose all the details of the transaction to which it relates, nor the particular business intended. The rule in Hadley v. Baxendale does not require that the parties must have contemplated the actual damages which are to be allowed, but such as may reasonably be supposed to have been contemplated.

Telegraph company need not have contemplated particular injury, but is liable if loss should have been contemplated as proximate result of its negligence, though particular (Rev. Gen. St 1920, § 4388). It is not essential that the particular loss or injury sustained was contemplated, but the company is liable if the loss sustained should have been contemplated as a probable and proximate result of its negligence.

Statute does not contemplate damages for feigned mental anguish, and unless some damage is presumed, facts must be alleged and proved to justify recovery (Rev. Gen. St. 1920, § 4388). The statute does not contemplate damages for feigned or affected mental anguish or mental pain caused by mere imaginary or fancied conditions or situation. Unless it be a case in which some damage may be presumed, facts must be alleged and proven to warrant recovery. It cannot rest on delusion, fancy, or imagination.

Riding in day coach in the night held insufficient to warrant recovery against telegraph company under mental statute (Rev. Gen. St. 1920, 4388). The mere fact that one rides on a day car in the night, unsupported by any other facts or circumstances tending to show cause for mental anguish or mental pain, is insufficient of predicate an action to recover damages under our mental anguish statute.

COUNSEL Myers & Myers, of Tallahassee, for plaintiff in error.

Davis & Pepper, of Perry, for defendants in error.

OPINION

TERRELL J.

Defendant in error Myrtle H. Taylor recovered a judgment for $500 against plaintiff in error, Western Union Telegraph Company, for negligently failing to deliver a telegraph message placed in its hands at Perry, Fla., July 27, 1921, by her husband, C. F. Taylor, for transmission to her at Ft. Pierce, Fla. Motion for new trial was denied, and writ of error taken from the judgment. This is the second appearance of this case here. See Western Union Telegraph Company v. Taylor, 87 Fla. 398, 100 So. 163.

The judgment here brought in question was recovered pursuant to section 4388, Revised General Statutes of Florida 1920, which makes any person, firm, or corporation liable in damages 'for mental anguish, distress or feeling, physical and mental pains and suffering resulting from the negligent failure to promptly transmit or promptly deliver such telegram, or because of the negligent failure to correctly transmit and deliver such telegram.'

The declaration, among other things, alleges that C. F. Taylor, husband of Myrtle H. Taylor, was in Perry, Fla., on July 27, 1921, and delivered the following message to the plaintiff in error for transmission to the defendant in error at Ft. Pierce, Fla. (omitting the address and signature):

'Will be in Jacksonville and meet you all Saturday morning. You leave there Friday night. Have Fred secure sleeper for you all. Get ten dollars from your mother for sleeper. I will mail back to her.'

It is further alleged that, previous to July 27, C. F. Taylor had written to Myrtle H. Taylor advising her that he would wire her as to the time and manner of her traveling from Ft. Pierce, Fla., where she was visiting, to her home at Perry, Fla., via Jacksonville, that the said C. F. Taylor paid the usual toll for the transmission and delivery of said telegraph message, but that the said Western Union Telegraph Company carelessly, negligently, and without regard to its duty, failed to transmit and deliver the said message to the said Myrtle H. Taylor, by reason whereof the said Myrtle H. Taylor suffered mental anguish, distress, and feeling, and physical and mental pain and suffering, in that, because of not having received the said telegram, the said Myrtle H. Taylor did not know what to do in regard to taking the trip from Ft. Pierce to Jacksonville and thence to Perry, Fla., and the said Myrtle H. Taylor, not knowing what to do in regard to said trip, on Friday, the 29th of July, 1921, left Ft. Pierce for Perry, Fla., accompanied by her children; that, because of not having received the said telegram, the said Myrtle H. Taylor did not secure a berth and ride on a sleeper from Ft. Pierce to Jacksonville, but rode in a day coach in the nighttime with her children; that the 'Fred' referred to in the body of the said telegram is Fred Faulkner, the brother of the said Myrtle H. Taylor; that the said Myrtle H. Taylor could have gotten the $10 referred to in the said telegram, from her mother, Mrs. Faulkner, at Ft. Pierce, Fla., if she had known that it would be all right with her husband, but that, because of the fact that she had not received any message or telegram from him, the said Myrtle H. Taylor did not know what course to pursue with reference to getting the money and taking the sleeper and making the trip home as aforesaid; that the mental anguish, distress and feeling, and physical and mental pain and suffering, caused by the negligent failure to deliver the telegram as aforesaid, and riding in the day coach in the nighttime, made and caused the said Myrtle H. Taylor to become sick and enfeebled, and to suffer mental and physical pain and suffering and anguish, distress, and feeling, and to remain sick and enfeebled thereby, and because of said trip in the day coach in the nighttime, for a long period of time, to wit for several months, wherefore plaintiff sues and claims $2,500 damages.

The delivery and acceptance of the telegram for transmission constituted a contract between the parties to this cause. The rule prescribed by Baron Alderson in Hadley v. Baxendale, 9 Exchequer Reports, 341, for the recovery of damages where a contract is breached, has been very generally approved in this country, and is as follows:

'Where two parties have made a contract which one of them has broken, the damages which the other party ought to receive in respect of such breach of contract should be such as may fairly and reasonably be considered either arising naturally--i. e., according to the usual course of things--from such breach of contract itself, or such an may reasonably be supposed to have been in the contemplation of both parties, at the time they made the contract, as the probable result of the breach of it.'

This rule has been extended to actions against telegraph companies for negligently transmitting or delivering telegraph messages. Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Hall, 124 U.S. 444, 8 S.Ct. 577, 31 L Ed. 479; Beaupre v. Pacific & Atlantic Telegraph Co., 21 Minn. 155; Candee v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 34 Wis. 471, 17 Am. Rep. 452; Landsberger v. Magnetic Telegraph Co., 32 Barb. (N. Y.) 530; Cannon v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 100 N.C. 300, 6 S.E. 731, 6 Am. St. Rep. 590; Kennon v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 126 N.C. 232, 35 S.E. 468; Williams v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 136 N.C. 82, 48 S.E. 559, 1 Ann. Cas. 369; Mackay v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 16 Nev. 222; Frazer v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 84 Ala. 487, 4 So. 831; Baldwin v. United States Telegraph Co., 45 N.Y. 744, 6 Am. Rep. 165; United States Telegraph Co. v. Gildersleve, 29 Md. 232, 96 Am. Dec. 519; Barnes v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 27 Nev. 438, 76 P. 931, 65 L. R. A. 666, 103 Am. St. Rep. 776, 1 Ann. Cas. 346.

Prior to the enactment of section 4388, Revised General Statutes of Florida, mental anguish resulting from the negligent transmission or delivery of a telegraph message was not an element of damage for which recovery could be had. Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Taylor, supra. Telegraph companies were, however, as at common law, liable for such damages as naturally and...