Western Union Tel. Co. v. Kirkpatrick

• Decision Date: 14 February 1890
• Citation: 13 S.W. 70
• Parties: WESTERN UNION TEL. CO. <I>v.</I> KIRKPATRICK.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

13 S.W. 70

WESTERN UNION TEL. CO.

v. KIRKPATRICK.

Supreme Court of Texas.

February 14, 1890.

Appeal from district court, Galveston county.

Stemmons & Field, for appellant. Wheeler & Rhodes, for appellee.

GAINES, J.

This suit was brought by appellee to recover of appellant damages for mental suffering of appellee's wife alleged to have resulted from a failure to deliver according to contract a telegraphic message. The plaintiff resided with his wife at Highland, and his wife's father was upon his death-bed in Galveston. Jerry Lordon, a relative of the family, delivered to the agent of the defendant company in Galveston a message for transmission to plaintiff which read as follows: "C. S. Kirkpatrick, Highland Station: Come on first train. Bring Ferdinand. His father very low." [Signed] JERRY LORDON. The message was received for transmission between 5 and 6 o'clock in the evening, but was not delivered until 10 o'clock at night. The wife of plaintiff was at his residence at Highland, and it is claimed was prevented by the delay in the delivery of the message from being with her father in his last moments. As plaintiff claims, the message was delivered too late to take the evening train to Galveston and that but for the delay the wife would have taken the train, and would have gone at once to the bedside of her father. After the receipt of the message, she took the next morning train, but arrived in Galveston after her father's death.

In the cases of Telegraph Co. v. Adams, 12 S. W. Rep. 857, and of Same v. Feegles, 12 S. W. Rep. 860, (decided at the last Tyler term,) we held that, in telegraph messages conveying information of sickness and death, if the language was sufficient to suggest that a near relationship existed between the person mentioned in the message and the person addressed, and that the object of the communication was to afford the latter the opportunity of going to his relative, it would be sufficient, without further notice, to render the company liable for damages for any mental suffering that should result to him from his being deprived of the consolation which his visit would have afforded, provided the negligence of the company in failing to make a prompt delivery was the cause of the injury. Those cases have been followed at the present term. Telegraph Co. v. Moore, 12 S. W. Rep. 949. It was not the purpose of the court, in the cases cited, to depart from the ruling that in these actions only such damages are recoverable as...