W. Union Tel. Co. v. Foy
Decision Date | 14 May 1912 |
Docket Number | Case Number: 1786 |
Citation | 124 P. 305,32 Okla. 801,1912 OK 434 |
Parties | WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO. v. FOY. |
Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. TELEGRAPHS AND TELEPHONES-- Operation--Failure to Deliver Message--Damages. Plaintiff, in an action for damages against a telegraph company, is not entitled to recover for mental anguish and suffering occasioned by negligence in the delivery of a telegraph message. Neither can a recovery be had for physical sickness resulting from a shock sustained at not being able to attend the funeral services of a deceased relative.
2. SAME. The fact that telegraph companies are by law in this state made common carriers, and must use the utmost diligence in the transmission and delivery of messages entrusted to them, does not change the rule at common law, with reference to their liability for damages, where the injury sustained is not the proximate and natural result of the negligent act.
Shartel, Keaton & Wells, J. G. Ralls, and George H. Fearons, for plaintiff in error.
D. H. Linebaugh, for defendant in error.
¶1 Numerous errors are charged to have been committed by the trial court, but one of which it will be necessary to consider at any length. Should the trial court have sustained the demurrer to the plaintiff's evidence? We may first consider that it may now be regarded as the law in this state, in harmony with the weight of authority elsewhere, that damages are not recoverable for mental distress alone, caused by negligent delay in delivering a telegram. Butner v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 2 Okla. 234, 37 P. 1087; Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Chouteau, 28 Okla. 664, 115 P. 879; Thomas v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 30 Okla. 63, 118 P. 370. It is, however, insisted on behalf of defendant in error that it does not follow that damages may not be recovered where sickness or physical suffering is consequent upon mental anxiety or anguish, or, as charged in the petition, that, by reason of the willful, wanton, and gross negligence of the company in not correctly and promptly transmitting and delivering the telegram, plaintiff was prevented from attending her brother's funeral, and was made sick and forced to take her bed, and sustained a great nervous shock, and by reason thereof suffered great mental anguish and pain. The distinction made is important, and we shall turn first to the testimony to ascertain whether the allegations of the petition are sustained by the testimony. The telegram was not delivered until the day following its receipt at the Atoka office. Mrs. Foy first received notice of her brother's death by telephone communication at about 10 o'clock on the night of June 10th, the day the message, incorrectly addressed, was received at the Atoka office. The following questions and answers are believed to be all that is to be found in the record touching plaintiff's physical or mental condition after being advised of her brother's death:
¶2 Dr. J. S. Fulton testified that he had been Mrs. Foy's family physician between eleven and thirteen years; that prior to June, 1909, the general condition of Mrs. Foy's health was good; that pneumonia was a germ disease with a local manifestation in the lungs, and that probably no cause contributed towards the development of this disease more than exposure; that great grief might weaken the constitution, and hasten illness. Other testimony given was in the form of answers to abstract questions as to how pneumonia might be contracted. This was all the testimony that was offered in support of the allegations of the injury sustained. Plaintiff's suit was filed September 11, 1909. According to her testimony, she did not call in her family physician until about January 1, 1910, though Dr. Fulton's testimony fixed the date a few weeks earlier, but months after the action had been instituted. Where physical sickness follows as a result of a nervous shock or of mental anxiety and distress, in the absence of any proof of gross or wanton negligence, is a telegraph company liable for delay in delivering a telegram announcing the death of a relative, whereby and on account of the negligent...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Chi., R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Radford
...37 P. 1087; Long v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 15 Okla. 512, 86 P. 289, 6 L.R.A. (N.S.) 883, 6 Ann. Cas. 1005; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Foy, 32 Okla. 801, 124 P. 305; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Reeves, 34 Okla. 468, 126 P. 216--announce no such rule. The injury done by being illegally res......
-
Condie v. Swainston
... ... Recoverable ... damages in any case must be susceptible of ascertainment with ... a reasonable degree of certainty. (Western Union & ... Telegraph Company v. Foy, 32 Okla. 801, 124 P. 305, 49 ... L. R. A. (N. S.) 343; Winston Cigarette Mach. v ... Wells-Whitehead Tobacco ... ...
- W. Union Tel. Co. v. Hankins
-
Mashunkashey v. Mashunkashey
...suffering is recognized as the ordinary, natural, and proximate result of such wrong. 17 C. J. 832. See, also, Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Foy, 32 Okla. 801, 124 P. 305. To fraudulently induce one to enter into a bigamous marriage contract would constitute such a wrong, and the resulting......