41 S.E. 521 | S.C. | 1902
April 11, 1902. The opinion of the Court was delivered by This was an action for damages for negligently failing to deliver a telegraphic message. The *427 appeal comes from a judgment for $500 against the defendant.
The first question presented is whether the Court erred in refusing defendant's motion to strike out certain allegations of the complaint. We, therefore, incorporate herein such allegations of the complaint as will make clear the question presented. It is alleged: "That on the 22d day of March, 1901, F.M. Simmons, the husband of the plaintiff, Maud Simmons, was in Greensboro, N.C. The said Maud Simmons had in some way heard her husband was sick, but could not ascertain whether he was slightly or seriously so. To be able to ascertain his condition and to relieve herself of the terrible suspense and stress of mind, she did on said day deliver to the defendant, at Greenville, S.C. for transmission and delivery the following prepaid message, to wit: `Greenville, S.C. March 22d 1901. F.M. Simmons, care Keely Institute, Greensboro, N.C. Are you sick? Answer at once. Mrs. F.M. Simmons.'
"(6) This message was promptly delivered by the defendant to the said F.M. Simmons, at Greensboro, N.C.; whereupon he at once caused to be delivered to the defendant, at Greensboro, N.C., for transmission and delivery to the plaintiff, Maud Simmons, and the defendant for such purpose received the following message, to wit: `Greensboro, N.C., March 22, 1901. Mrs. F.M. Simmons, Greenville, S.C. Have been sick. Am better now. Don't be uneasy. F.M. Simmons.'
"(7) That the defendant had notice of the importance of said message, and of the annoyance, anxiety, pain and suffering that would result to the plaintiff, Maud Simmons, if the message was not transmitted and delivered.
"(8) That the defendant so negligently performed its duty that said message was not transmitted and delivered within a reasonable time, and its conduct in that behalf was so wanton or wilful or reckless that said message has never been delivered.
"(9) The plaintiff, Maud Simmons, received no response *428 to her said message. That the reason therefor was the negligence, or wantonness, or wilfulness, or recklessness of the defendant in transmitting or delivering the said message addressed to her. That she relied upon the prompt delivery of her message of enquiry before described, and believing it had been delivered and receiving no response, was because of the aforesaid reasons subjected to all the annoyances, anxiety, pain and trouble of mind incident to the conditions thereby created. In consequence of the negligence, or wantonness, or wilfulness, or recklessness of the defendant as aforesaid, she was made to suffer great and grievous mental anguish, pain and suffering, and was made sick, forced to take her bed and call in the services of a physician, and expended large sums of money in medicine, care and nursing, all to her damage $2,000."
The motion was to strike out the words in the last sentence above, "And was made sick, forced to take her bed and call in the services of a physician, and expended large sums of money in medicines, care and nursing," as irrelevant and surplusage, and not legally connected with or resulting from the cause of action set out in the complaint. We think the motion was properly refused. The allegations were relevant to the cause of action, the action being for damages resulting from mental anguish and physical suffering alleged to have been caused by the defendant's negligence. The Court could not say as matter of law that bodily illness is not a natural and proximate result of negligence in delivering certain messages. It was the province of the jury to determine whether such was the fact upon the testimony given.
The next and main question presented is whether the "mental anguish" act, approved February 20, 1901, violates the
"Section 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina: That from and after the passage of this act, all telegraph companies doing business in this State shall be liable in damages for mental anguish or suffering even in the absence of bodily injury for negligence in receiving, transmitting or delivering messages.
"Sec. 2. That nothing contained in this act shall abridge the rights or remedies now provided by law against telegraph companies, and the rights and remedies provided for by this act shall be in addition to those now existing.
"Sec. 3. That in all actions under this act the jury may award such damages as they conclude resulted from negligence of said telegraph companies." 23 Stat., 748.
We hold with the Circuit Court, that the act is not unconstitutional in the particulars named. "Due process of law" means the same as "the law of the land," and as a general rule involves an opportunity before a proper tribunal under established procedure to make contest in defending or enforcing a legal right. Den v. Hoboken etc. Co., 18 How., 272,
The foregoing disposes practically of all the material questions presented. The exceptions have all been considered by the Court and are overruled.
The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.