Case Name: SPEARMAN v. TOYE BROS. AUTO & TAXICAB CO., Inc.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1927-10-31
Citations: 164 La. 677
Docket Number: No. 28141
Parties: SPEARMAN v. TOYE BROS. AUTO & TAXICAB CO., Inc.
Judges: 
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 164
Pages: 677–685

Head Matter:
(114 So. 591)
No. 28141.
SPEARMAN v. TOYE BROS. AUTO & TAXICAB CO., Inc.
Oct. 31, 1927.
John' P. Sullivan and David Sessler, both of New Orleans, for appellant.
J. L. Warren Woodville, of New Orleans, for appellee.

Opinion:
O'NIELL, C. J.'
This is a suit for damages. The plaintiff charges that, while she was riding on the front seat of a sight-seeing car operated by the defendant as a public conveyance, the chauffeur, "with his right hand, grasped her left thigh, squeezing it, greatly to her humiliation, mortification, mental pain, and anguish." She claims $15,000 damages "for the humiliation, mental anguish, pain, and suffering" which she says she endured "as the result of the insult and outrage" There is no claim for damages for physical injury, nor allegation that any such injury was inflicted. The civil district court, trying the case without a jury, gave judgment for the plaintiff for $2,500, from which the defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal. That court, on its own motion, transferred the case here for want of jurisdiction. The appellant insists that the case is within the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal, and should be retransferred.
On the Question of Jurisdiction.
The third paragraph of the tenth section of article 7 of the Constitution of Louisiana, defining the jurisdiction of this court in civil cases, makes this exception, viz.:
"Except in suits for damages for physical injuries to, or for the death of a person, or for other damages sustained by such person or his heirs or legal representatives, arising out of the same circumstances."
The eases coming within the exception are, by the general terms of the 29th section of the same article of the Constitution, appeal-able to the Courts of Appeal. This case, however, is not within the exception, for it is not a suit for damages for physical injuries or for damages caused by or resulting from an act which caused also a physical injury. As far as the allegations and the proof go, there was no more of a physical injury to the plaintiff than there would have been if she had been insulted verbally by the chauffeur. The purpose of excepting from the juris1 diction of this court suits "for other damages arising out of the same circumstances" as those causing physical injuries was to confer upon one and the same appellate court jurisdiction over a suit for the damages of every character' resulting from a wrongful act or negligence causing physical injury to a person. As the wrong complained of in this case, if it occurred, did not cause physical injury to the plaintiff, and as the amount in dispute exceeds $2,000, exclusive of interest, the appeal is within the jurisdiction of this court, and not of the Court of Appeal.