Whitsel v. Watts

• Decision Date: 08 July 1916
• Docket Number: 20,069
• Citation: 159 P. 401,98 Kan. 508
• Parties: CARRIE WHITSEL, Appellee, v. D. M. WATTS, Appellant
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

159 P. 401

98 Kan. 508

CARRIE WHITSEL, Appellee, v. D. M. WATTS, Appellant

No. 20,069

Supreme Court of Kansas

July 8, 1916

Decided July, 1916.

Appeal from Bourbon district court; CHARLES E. HULETT, judge.

Judgment affirmed.

SYLLABUS

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.

1. DAMAGES--Fright--Mental Anguish--Bodily Injuries. In general there can be no recovery for fright or mental anguish unless it results in or is accompanied by bodily injury.

2. SAME--Extreme Fright--Willful Negligence--Bodily Injuries--Proximate Cause. A recovery may be had for bodily injuries which are the natural and proximate result of extreme fright caused by negligence, and especially where the fright is caused by willful wrong or an act so grossly negligent as to show utter indifference to consequences.

A. M. Keene, of Fort Scott, for the appellant.

Hubert Lardner, of Fort Scott, for the appellee.

OPINION

JOHNSTON, C. J.:

Carrie Whitsel recovered a judgment against D. M. Watts for $ 225 as damages for injuries which he is alleged to have willfully and maliciously inflicted upon her. Defendant appeals and insists that the evidence did not warrant the verdict of the jury and the judgment of the court and that several rulings made during the trial were erroneous.

It appears that defendant held a mortgage on some hogs belonging to the plaintiff's husband and that accompanied by a constable he visited the plaintiff's home when her husband was absent and undertook to obtain possession of the mortgaged hogs. Upon arriving at the place the constable went into the house and told the plaintiff of the purpose of their visit, but the plaintiff refused to surrender possession of the hogs. The interview between them occurred in the yard between the house and the gate near which the defendant was seated in a buggy. According to the plaintiff's testimony the defendant, upon learning of the plaintiff's refusal to give possession of the hogs, jumped out of his buggy, ran towards the plaintiff in an angry, threatening manner, swearing and shaking his fist and saying: "You are fooling with the wrong person this time." She was greatly frightened, turned and ran into the house, closing and fastening the door, and then collapsed. Her husband returned shortly after the occurrence and found her in an unconscious state, and when she became conscious she was suffering intense pain and within a few hours a miscarriage and subsequent illness resulted.

Defendant insists that he inflicted no bodily injury upon her, that no physical injury was in fact threatened, that there was no assault upon her and that proof of a mere fright furnishes no basis for a recovery. It has long been the rule here that there can be no recovery for fright or mental anguish unless it results in or is accompanied by physical injury to the person. (Shelton v. Bornt, 77 Kan. 1, 93 P. 341.) The plaintiff, however, is not asking a recovery for fright alone, but for the personal injuries directly resulting from fright caused by the willful tort of the defendant. It is argued that as the acts of the defendant did not amount to an assault she has no right to recover; but the defendant's liability does not depend upon whether his wrongful onset constituted an assault. The plaintiff is seeking to enforce a civil liability for the consequences of the wrong and the general rule is that a wrongdoer is liable in damages for injuries which are the natural and reasonable consequences of his wrongful act, whatever name may be fittingly applied to the wrong. Taking the testimony of the plaintiff, as the jury did, the defendant advanced upon the plaintiff with clenched fist in a threatening manner, at the same time using violent abusive and insulting language towards the plaintiff which she says led her to fear that he would strike and injure her and the result was the...