Woodard v. Texas & P. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 02 October 1935
• Docket Number: No. 1885-6411.,1885-6411.
• Citation: 86 S.W.2d 38
• Parties: WOODARD v. TEXAS & P. RY. CO.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

Page 38

86 S.W.2d 38

WOODARD v. TEXAS & P. RY. CO.

No. 1885-6411.

Commission of Appeals of Texas, Section A.

October 2, 1935.

Error to Court of Civil Appeals of Sixth Supreme Judicial District.

Suit by H. B. Woodard against the Texas & Pacific Railway Company. To review a judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals [53 S.W.(2d) 82], reversing a judgment for plaintiff, plaintiff brings error.

Judgments of trial court and Court of Civil Appeals set aside, and cause reversed and remanded.

Jones & Jones and Percy Woodard, all of Marshall, Ben A. Harper, of Tyler, and P. G. Henderson, of Jefferson, for plaintiff in error.

Bibb & Bibb, of Marshall, J. H. Benefield, of Jefferson, and T. D. Gresham and R. S. Shapard, both of Dallas, for defendant in error.

GERMAN, Commissioner.

Plaintiff in error, H. B. Woodard, who will be designated plaintiff, sued Texas & Pacific Railway Company, herein referred to as defendant, in the district court of Marion county, Tex., for damages. He alleged that as owner of a ticket sold to him by defendant he was returning from New Orleans to Alexandria, La., when he was subjected to certain mistreatment, as set forth in the following portions of his pleading:

"The defendant did negligently and carelessly cause and/or permit the plaintiff to be insulted, humiliated, and intimidated by an agent, servant, or employee of defendant or one permitted to operate over and use the lines of defendant between New Orleans and Alexandria, Louisiana, in that when plaintiff was returning from New Orleans to Alexandria, Louisiana, in accordance with his ticket and contract with defendant, said agent, servant, or employee, after accepting the return portion of plaintiff's ticket did, in the presence of other fellow passengers of plaintiff, demand that plaintiff pay his fare or get off the train. That plaintiff protested paying his fare for the reason that he had already paid it once, and attempted to remain on said train without twice paying his fare.

"That notwithstanding the obligation of defendant as above alleged, it did cause or permit said employee to threaten to eject plaintiff and remove him from said train where plaintiff was entitled to be by virtue of said contract or ticket, and that when plaintiff protested at leaving said train, defendant did cause or permit an officer of the law to come upon said train at and near the station of Donaldsonville, Louisiana, and did cause and permit said officer of the law to threaten and intimidate plaintiff in the presence of his fellow passengers, thereby causing him great humiliation and mental suffering, and did further embarrass the plaintiff and demand that he either pay another fare or leave the train of the defendant.

"Plaintiff further shows that by reason of the conduct of the defendant in breaching or causing to be breached its contract with plaintiff entitling him to safe passage from New Orleans to Alexandria, Louisiana as alleged, plaintiff was caused to suffer much mental pain and anxiety, and particularly was he humiliated and embarrassed by being threatened with arrest as above alleged."

Among the issues submitted to the jury was the following:

"Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that the conductor or special officer of the train used language or conduct towards plaintiff which was of a humiliating, insulting and threatening nature to him?"

To this issue the jury answered, "Yes."

The court, in submitting the issue of damages, instructed the jury as follows:

"You are instructed that you cannot take into consideration anything except the humiliation, embarrassment and mental distress, if any you find, that plaintiff suffered."

The jury awarded plaintiff $400.

The Court of Civil Appeals reversed the judgment of the trial court and directed that the cause be dismissed. Judge Levy dissented. 53 S.W.(2d) 82. The ground upon which the Court of Civil Appeals based its decision was that "damages cannot be recovered for mental suffering, when there is no physical injury, injury to property, or other damages."

In this holding the Court of Civil Appeals erred. We think it well settled by our own decisions as well as by the great weight of authority that if a passenger on a railway train is wrongfully subjected to insults, abuse, or ill treatment by the agents or servants of the railway company, and is thereby caused to suffer humiliation and mental distress, he is entitled to damages, notwithstanding he may not have suffered any physical or property damage. Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Armstrong, 93 Tex. 31, 51 S. W. 835; Houston, E. & W. T. Ry. Co. v. Perkins, 21 Tex. Civ. App. 508, 52 S. W. 124 (writ ref.); Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Jones (Tex. Civ. App.) 39 S. W. 124 (writ ref.); Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Ball, 25 Tex. Civ. App. 500, 61 S. W. 327; Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Luther, 40 Tex. Civ. App. 517, 90 S. W. 44 (writ ref.); see annotation in 23 A. L. R. pp. 385-391.

This was the only question passed upon by the Court of Civil Appeals, and as its judgment must be reversed on this point, it becomes our duty to pass upon other questions of law presented by the defendant in the Court of Civil Appeals.

In passing, we may say that the defendant in the Court of Civil Appeals assigned no error raising the question that damages for mental suffering are not allowed in the absence of physical injury or other damages. The proposition...