Williams v. Western Union Tel. Co.

• Decision Date: 27 September 1904
• Citation: 48 S.E. 559,136 N.C. 82
• Parties: WILLIAMS v. WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

48 S.E. 559

136 N.C. 82

WILLIAMS v. WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

September 27, 1904

Appeal from Superior Court, Halifax County; Councill, Judge.

Action by C. A. Williams against the Western Union Telegraph Company. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.

Douglas J., dissenting.

In an action for the erroneous transmission of a message by which the sender directed the addressee to have a certain doctor meet the sender at another city on a certain day, the sender was not entitled to recover for mental anguish sustained by reason of the fact that his sister-in-law was prevented by the error from obtaining necessary medical attention en route, but was limited to a recovery of the amount paid for the telegram; there being no evidence that the purpose of the message had been communicated to defendant, and there being nothing on its face to indicate that the doctor's services as a physician were required.

The plaintiff brought this action to recover damages for failing to correctly transmit a telegram. The telegram as sent was in the following words: "Richmond, Va. Nov. 11, 1903. J. H Durham, Tillery, N. C.: Have Dr. Register meet me at Weldon Friday. C. A. Williams." Plaintiff alleged: That he had gone to Richmond for the purpose of bringing the invalid sister of his wife to his home at Tillery, and upon leaving home Dr. Register, his family physician, had agreed to meet him at Weldon, when notified to do so, to give his sister-in-law necessary medical attention on her journey. In the message as shown to Dr. Register at Tillery "Wednesday" was inserted for "Friday," and the doctor, by reason of the mistake, was induced to go to Weldon on Wednesday, instead of Friday, and remained there until the next morning. That in consequence of defendant's negligence he could not get for his relative when he arrived at Weldon, the medical attention which she so much needed, and he suffered thereby great mental anguish and distress. The plaintiff's allegations were denied by the defendant, except the allegations that there was a mistake in the message as shown to Dr. Register, and that he went to Weldon on Wednesday.

The court submitted two issues to the jury--one as to defendant's negligence, and the other as to the damages. Plaintiff introduced evidence tending to sustain the allegations of his complaint. Dr. Register, one of the plaintiff's witnesses, testified that he was informed by Mr. Whitehead, who wrote the message in Richmond for the plaintiff, that the day written in the message was ""Friday," and not "Wednesday"; that he had confidence in Mr. Whitehead, who was highly regarded by him as a man of character, and he had no reason to doubt his statement, but thought it best to rely on the message, as more certain than Mr. Whitehead's recollection, and that he could have gone to Weldon on Friday. Defendant did not introduce any testimony, but requested the court to give certain instructions; the only one which it is necessary to set out being as follows: "If you find the evidence to be true, the second issue should be answered '25 cents,' the cost of the message." The court refused to give the instruction, and the defendant excepted. Among other instructions, the court gave the following: "The plaintiff is entitled to recover damages, if any he sustained, for his mental suffering and anxiety caused by the negligence of the defendant." Defendant excepted. There was a verdict for the plaintiff for $131.25, motion by defendant for a new trial upon exceptions taken, motion refused, judgment, and appeal by defendant.

R. C. Strong, F. H. Busbee, and Philip H. Busbee, for appellant.

W. H. Dunn and Albion Dunn, for appellee.

WALKER J.

This case was so ably presented to us by the learned young counsel who argued for the plaintiff in this court that we were at first almost persuaded to believe that the legal merits were with him, but after a careful examination of the facts in the light of well-settled principles of law we are convinced that the court erred both in giving the instruction to which exception was taken and in refusing to give the instruction requested by the defendant. In order to ascertain the damages which a plaintiff, who sues for a breach of contract, is entitled to recover, the rule laid down by Baron Alderson for the court in Hadley v. Baxendale, 9 Exch. 341, has generally been adopted as the one which will give the complaining party a fair and reasonable recompense for any loss he may have sustained or for any injury he may have suffered. The rule is thus stated in that case: "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--that is, according to the usual course of things--from such breach of contract itself, or such as 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 court has fully approved the rule. Ashe v. De Rossett, 50 N.C 299, 72 Am. Dec. 552; Spencer v. Hamilton, 113 N.C. 49, 18 S.E. 167, 37 Am. St. Rep. 611; Herring v. Armwood, 130 N.C. 177, 41 S.E. 96, 57 L. R. A. 958. It has been applied in actions against telegraph companies for negligence in transmitting and delivering messages. Telegraph Co. v. Hall, 124 U.S. 444, 8 S.Ct. 577, 31 L.Ed. 479; Cannon v. Telegraph Co., 100 N.C. 300, 6 S.E. 731, 6 Am. St. Rep. 590; Kennon v. Telegraph Co., 126 N.C. 232, 35 S.E....