Yazoo & M.V.R.R. Co. v. Fletcher

• Decision Date: 20 November 1911
• Docket Number: 15,196
• Citation: 100 Miss. 589,56 So. 667
• Parties: YAZOO & MISSISSIPPI VALLEY R. R. CO. v. WILLIAM FLETCHER
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

56 So. 667

100 Miss. 589

YAZOO & MISSISSIPPI VALLEY R. R. CO. v. WILLIAM FLETCHER

No. 15,196

Supreme Court of Mississippi

November 20, 1911

APPEAL from the circuit court of Bolivar county, HON. SAM C. COOK Judge.

Suit by William Fletcher against the Yazoo & Miss. Valley R. R. Co. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.

The appellee, who was plaintiff in the court below, brought an action for fifty thousand dollars damages for injuries sustained by him in a head-on collision between a passenger train and freight train on the line of the defendant's railroad; the appellee, an engineer of the appellant, having been in service eighteen years--three years as fireman and fifteen years as engineer. On the day of the accident he was in charge of the north-bound passenger train on his regular run, which he had had for some time. He was entirely familiar with his run and schedule, and his train, being of the first class, had right of way over all other trains of the same class and of inferior classes. His train was due to arrive at the station of Burdette at 7:42 a. m., and arrived on time on the day of the accident. At about 7:25 a. m., of the same day a south-bound mixed freight and passenger train, carrying a circus, pulled out of the station of Leland, running toward Burdette, a distance of 4.1 miles. The engineer on this circus train was a man named Ryan, who was on his first run having previously been employed about the yards on switch engines. The proof shows that he knew the schedule, and knew that the north-bound train was due at Burdette at 7:42. It is shown that he looked at his watch, and having some doubt about making Burdette in time to take the siding, which left the main line about four hundred feet north of the station at Burdette he asked the conductor if he thought he could make it. It seems that the circus people were hurrying the conductor, so that they might arrive as early as possible at their destination, below Burdette, where they were to give a performance that day. The conductor and engineer then decided to make the run. It is shown by the record that they had to stop at the Southern Railway crossing at Leland, and make another stop at the switch north of Burdette, and that each stop consumed about five minutes, as it took from two to three minutes to stop and as long to get under way again. The rules of the railroad company required freight trains to clear at a siding not less than ten minutes prior to the time of arrival of a passenger train. The morning was very foggy and the undisputed testimony shows that neither engineer could see a great distance ahead of him.

The circus train proceeded south, and as it approached Burdette the engineer put a brakeman out on the pilot to look out for the switch, as the fog had obscured the switch staff. The switch was not seen in time, however, either by the engineer or by the brakeman. The engineer testified that the first knowledge that he had of arriving at the switch was the noise of the engine going over the frog. He immediately put on his emergency brakes, and slowed down his train to something like six miles an hour, in order to back his train and pull out on the siding. Before he could stop, the north-bound passenger train was upon him. The appellee, who was in charge of the north-bound passenger train, testified that he did not see the south-bound circus train until he was within thirty yards of it, and that he hardly had time to reverse his engine and jump before the collision. He was caught in the wreckage, and knocked unconscious, receiving injuries in the head, side back, and leg. He brought suit, and the court permitted the jury to consider, not only the compensatory damages, but punitive damages, in making up their verdict. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff for twelve thousand dollars and from a judgment for that amount this appeal is taken.

Affirmed.

F. A. Montgomery, Chas. N. Burch and Mayes & Longstreet, for appellant.

We insist that there could be no case of gross negligence in this, and certainly no case warranting the finding of the verdict for punitive damages in this case, because the testimony is undisputed, to-wit, the testimony of the engineer and the flagman both, that there was ample time to clear the main line before the arrival of the passenger train, and that the cause of the collision was that this engineer in the exercise of the utmost degree of caution, simply was unable to see the switch target and passed it in the fog.

"Punitive damages," "vindictive damages," and "exemplary damages," are synonymous terms.

The kind of wrongs to which exemplary damages are applicable are those which, besides the violation of a right, or the actual damages sustained, import insult, fraud, or oppression, and are not merely injuries, but injuries inflicted in the spirit of wanton disregard. 13 Cyc., pages 105 to 110 inclusive, and the very full notes thereto with cases cited; especially see the language used in paragraph C, on page 110, as follows:

"Where the negligence is accidental or no wantonness or circumstances of malice enter into the wrong, there can be no recovery of exemplary damages." See, also, the case of Vicksburg R. R.; P. and M. Co. v. Marlett, 78 Miss. 873, wherein Judge Terrell speaking for the court, says:

"That punitive damages may be recovered only in cases where the acts complained of are characterized by malice, fraud oppression, or willful wrong evincing a disregard of the rights of others." Also: R. R. Co. v. Moore, 79 Miss. 776; Strom v. Green, 51 Miss. 103; Whitfield v. Whitfield, 40 Miss. 352; Briscoe v. McElwinn, 43 Miss. 557; Jamison v. Moon, 43 Miss. 598; Chicago R....