Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1904-05-25

pany might reasonably infer that as
result of it's failure to deliver the
message, the sender would be COMPEL
ed to walk alone in the night, sub
ject to distress of minu Other cases
indicating that the damages are not
too remote, are cited in the brief IN
GLIDING Henderson, " w. u, 76 N. W,
1928 and Pruett v. w. u, 25 S. W., 1874
We think in the case at bar that
the evils and damage coming to plain
tiff by reason of defendants negligent
ly causing him to be placed in the sit
uation that he was on his arrival
Ogden and during his journey to Bat
tie Mountain, were reasonably within
the contemplation of the parties, plain
tiff and defendant, when they entered
into their contract of senuing the tele-
graphic message at Grand Junction,
Colorado. The evils and damages that
came to plaintiff after his arrival at
Battle Mountain, to-wit, breaking #
his leg, ETC.. were not claimed or al
lowed for in damages in the case
and therefore need no consideration in
this opinion.
Under the circumstances of the case
we, for the foregoing reasons think
the damages awarded to the plaintiff
by the trial court were neither remote
nor excessive; and therefore its judy
ment in the case is affirmed.
Fitzgerald, J.
I concur:
Talbot, J.
| 6eiknap, c. j., Dissenting.
| Upon the facts l think the damages
are excessive and not within the con-
temptation of appellant when It
entered into the contract to TRANSMIT.
the message.
The case of Squire ct al. v. Western
Union Tel. Co., SO Mass. 232, was
tort for neglect to deliver a telegra-
phic message seasonably. In that case.
as in this, there were no special sttp-
iulations or restrictions attached as
to defendants liability, and it was
held responsible according to the gea-
eral rules of law The court in thai
case, said: these rules in their 1p-
plication to damages in actions of
this nature are we'll settled and fanil-
lar. A party who has failed to fulfill
a contract cannot be held liable for
remote, contingent and uncertain con-
sequences, or for speculative or pos
sible results which may have ensued
on his breech of duty, although thev
may be traceable to that cause. The
reason is that damages of such nat
ure are no a natural or necessary
incidents of a contract, and cannot
be deemed to have been within the
contemplation of parties when they
agreed together.
"A rule of damages which should
embrace within it's scope all the con
sequences which might be shown to
nave ISSultOu AAOu4 a AoAluA VI OAhASo'
ion to perform stipulated duty or
service, would be serious hinderance
to the operations Of commerce and
to the transaction of the common
business of life. The effect would often
be to impose liability wholly dispro
portionate to the nature of the act OF
service which a party has bound him
self to perform, and to the compensa
!, ton paid and received therefor. The
practical rule, founded on a wise policy
and at the same time, consistent will
good sense and sound equity, is that .
lparty can be held liable for breech OF
a contract only for such damages as
ARE the natural or necessary, and tn:
Immediate and direct results of thu
breech such as might properly bt
ldeemed to have been in contemplatioI
of the parties when the contract Wal
lentered into, and that all remote, spc
ulative and uncertain results -"
must be excluded, as forming no jus
;. jor legitimate basis on which to de