Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Bennett

• Decision Date: 29 November 1911
• Citation: 3 Ala.App. 275,57 So. 87
• Parties: WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO. v. BENNETT.
• Court: Alabama Court of Appeals

57 So. 87

3 Ala.App. 275

WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO. v. BENNETT.

Court of Appeals of Alabama

November 29, 1911

Appeal from Law and Equity Court, Walker County; T. L. Sowell Judge.

Action by R. E. Bennett against the Western Union Telegraph Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

George H. Fearons, Campbell & Johnston, and W. C. Davis, for appellant.

A. F. Fite, for appellee.

DE GRAFFENRIED, J.

This was a special action of trespass on the case which was brought by appellee against appellant for the alleged negligence of appellant in the transmission of a telegram, and by reason of which negligence it is alleged in the complaint the appellee was damaged. The appellee resides in Columbus, Miss., and on July 5, 1907, his family consisted of himself, his wife, and three or four children of tender age, the youngest child being then only three or four months old. H. K. Caddell was the father of appellee's wife, and on July 5, 1907, he resided at Winfield, Ala. On said day the wife of appellee, who had been seriously sick for about six weeks, died. Her father and one of her sisters visited her during her illness, but they left Columbus and returned to Winfield, Ala., about 10 days before her death. When Mr. Caddell left Columbus, he requested appellee to keep him informed as to his daughter's condition, and to wire him in the event of her death. Neither appellee nor his wife had any relations living in Columbus Miss., except their children, and when the wife was buried none of their relatives were present with appellee at the funeral.

When his wife died, appellee, wishing her father to know about her death, and also desiring his presence at the funeral requested R. E. Cheatam to wire his said father-in-law at Winfield, Ala., that his wife was dead and also the time when she would be buried. Acting under said instructions, Cheatam delivered to appellant a telegram for transmission to Caddell at Winfield, which, when he delivered it to appellant, read as follows: "July 5, 1907. To H. K. Caddell, Winfield Alabama. Mrs. R. E. Bennett just died. Will be buried to-morrow eve. R. E. Cheatam for R. E Bennett."

Appellant undertook to transmit and deliver the telegram to Caddell at Winfield, and appellee paid to appellant 25 cents, its customary charges, for so doing. The telegram was transmitted to Winfield and there delivered to the said Caddell at 5 o'clock on the afternoon of July 5th, in ample time for him to have reached Columbus the next morning, but too late for him to reach there on that day. When the telegram was delivered to Mr. Caddell it read as follows: "July 5, 1907. To H. K. Caddell, Winfield, Alabama. Mrs. R. E. Bennett just died. Will be buried to-day eve. R. E. Cheatam for R. E. Bennett."

A mistake was made by the servants of appellant in transmitting the message, in that the words "to-morrow eve" were changed to the words "to-day eve," and as the telegram was received too late for Caddell to reach Columbus on the 5th, and as he naturally presumed that his daughter would be buried on that day, he did not attempt to go to Columbus or to attend the funeral. The evidence tends to show that but for the above mistake made by the servants of appellant in the transmission of the telegram, Caddell would have been present at his daughter's funeral. Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Snell, 56 So. 854.

1. When a man's wife dies, if he is a normal man, his thoughts turn, naturally, to her people, for it is her people, next to himself, who are most afflicted by her death. The wife's mother appears to have been dead, and this telegram was sent to her father, who, next to her husband and her children, stood most closely to her, and who, by reason of his own grief, would have been the most natural person in the world to give sympathy and comfort to the husband in his sorrow. He was the father-in-law of the husband, the grandfather of his children, and, if the husband was a normal man, he entertained for Caddell an affection and veneration second only to that in which he held his own parents. The relationship of the parties was such as to warrant the recovery of damages for mental suffering if by reason of appellant's negligence, the father-in-law failed to attend the funeral, and the appellee was...