Case Name: LOTT v. WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO.; LOTT ET AL. v. SAME
Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1923-06-26
Citations: 127 S.C. 238
Docket Number: 11258
Parties: LOTT v. WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO. LOTT ET AL. v. SAME
Judges: Mr. Chief Justice Gary and Mr. Justice Watts concur.
Reporter: South Carolina Reports
Volume: 127
Pages: 238–248

Head Matter:
11258
LOTT v. WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH CO. LOTT ET AL. v. SAME
(119 S. E., 870)
1. Trial — Request That Plaintiff Cannot Recover for Disappointment, Etc., Properly Refused. — In an action against a telegraph company for alleged negligence in transmitting money, a request that plaintiff cannot recover for any feeling of disappointment, annoyance, or vexation which he may have felt by reason of the alleged failure to promptly deliver the message was properly refused; it being for the jury to say whether any such feeling amounted to mental anguish or suffering.
2. Trial — Instruction on Punitive Damages Held Not Error. — In an action against a telegraph company for negligence in transmitting money, an instruction that punitive damages are especially applicable to public service corporations was not error, in view of an instruction that the case must be tried as if between two corporations or two individuals.
3. Telegraphs and Telephones — Held to Strict Performance of Duties. — Public service corporations are held to a strict performance of their duties.
4. Damages — Verdict for Punitive Damages Sustained in Aesence of a Verdict for Actual Damages. — In an action against a telegraph company for alleged negligence in transmitting money a verdict showing on its face that it is for punitive damages only will be sustained on the theory that it is also for actual damages which are merely nominal and do not require expression in verdict.
5. Costs — Costs of Appeal Denied Successful Party, Evidence Being Printed in Full. — Where all the evidence was printed in full in the record instead of in narrative form, costs of the appeal will be denied to respondent, though appellant was unsuccessful.
Before DeVorL, J., Bamberg, March, 1922.
Affirmed.
Separate actions consolidated for trial by J. H. Lott and Mrs. J. H. Lott and husband against Western Union Tele graph Co. Judgment for plaintiffs in each action, and defendant appeals.
Messrs. Francis R. Stark, Nelson & Mullins and B. H. Henderson, for appellant,
cite: Mental anguish to support n recovery defined: 69 S. C, 231; 73 S. C., 520; 81 S. C., 235; 108 S. C., 220; 71 S. C., 29; 181 S. W. 800. Judgment must declare law: Const. 1895, Art. 5, Sec. 26; 109 S. C., 245; 112 S. E., 78. Telegraph Company liable for failure to exercise due care: 19 S. C., 71; 110 S. C., 233. No duty to call Court’s attention to misstatement of law as well as charge on the facts: 110 S. E., 392; 112 S. E., 437. Settlement of case for appeal: 98 S. C., 431; 110 S. C., 518.
Messrs. Carter, Carter & Kearse, for respondent,
cite: It is not necessary to have a verdict rendered for actual damages to sustain a verdict for punitive damages: 110 S. C., 233; 77 S. C., 56; 97 S. C., 385.
June 26, 1923.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Fraser.
J. H. Lott lived in Bamberg, S. C., and, being out of .work there, went up to Columbia and found work. He left Mrs. Lott without money in Bamberg. As soon as he could get some money, he undertook to send $7.00 to his wife. He carried the money ($7.00) to the office of the defendant. Mr. Lott paid the money and telegraph charges to the agent of the defendant. In order to transport the money, they turned the matter over to a Columbia bank, which wired a Bamberg bank to pay over the money. The Columbia bank made a' mistake in the name, and wired the Bamberg bank to pay to Mrs. J. H. Scott. Mr. Lott claims to have sent Mrs. Lott a telegram notifyng her that he had sent the money and asking her to come to Columbia the next day. The defendant denies the telegram. Mrs. Lott did not receive the telegram, nor did she come to Columbia. Mr. Lott heard nothing from the defendant as to the nondelivery of the money, and after several days went to Bamberg to find his wife. After he arrived at Bamberg, the money was delivered, and this action was brought for damages, actual and punitive. Both Mr. and Mrs. Lott brought suit, and the cases were tried together. There were judgments for' the plaintiffs, and the defendant appealed.
I. The first assignment of error is that the presiding; Judge refused to charge:
"Under the testimony in ithis case the plaintiff cannot recover for any feeling of disappointment, annoyance, or vexation which he may have felt by reason of the alleged failure to promptly deliver the message in question."
The appellant seeks to sustain this exception by the following extract from Johnson v. Telegraph Company, 81 S. C., 235; 62 S. E., 244; 17 L. R. A. (N. S.), 1002; 128 Am. St. Rep., 905:
"Our Statute provides for damages for 'mental anguish or suffering.' It will not be doubted these words were intended to have their usual strong meaning. They do not give the slighest ground to impute to the General Assembly an intention to incumber the administration of justice, and open the flood gates of speculative litigation, by allowing-suits to be brought for any unpleasant feeling or sensation,, however slight. Mental sufferng means distress or serious-pain as distinguished from annoyance, regret, or vexation-Mental anguish is intense mental suffering."
This authority does not sustain the appellant. "Any feeling of disappointment," etc., means any feeling, however great. The feeling of uncertainty may amount to anguish, and it was for the jury to determine the degree of suffering. The appellant concedes that it is liable if there was "mental anguish or suffering." This point cannot be sustained.
II. The next assignment of error is:
"Punitive damages are given in the nature of a punishment. They are sometimes called exemplary damages. It is sometimes called smart money; but the main object of it is that it is given in the nature of a punishment, and especially is that so in a case like this, where it is against a corporation that holds itself out to the use of serving the public."
The words of offense are "especially is that so in a case like this, where it is against a corporation that holds itself out to the use of serving the public." His Honor had charged the jury that the case must be tried as if between two corporations, or two individuals. Public service corporations are held to a strict performance of their duties.
Reaves v. Telegraph Co., 110 S. C., 240; 96 S. E., 297:
"To increase its business and revenues, by including in its charges the exchange for transmitting money, it offered the public its services and facilities in handling the entire transaction in such cases; and in doing so it voluntarily brought itself into the status and relation to the public of a common carrier, with resepct to that business, at least to the extent that the rules applicable to that relation reasonably may be applied t othe conduct of the business."
This assignment of error cannot be sustained.
III. The next assignment of error is in the .refusal of a new trial, on the ground that inasmuch as there was no finding of actual damages, a verdict for punitive damages cannot be sustained.
In Bethea v. Telegraph Co., 97 S. C., 387, 388; 81 S. E., 676, we find:
"Under this authority, we do not regard the charge of his Honor, the presiding Judge, and the verdict of the jury as inconsistent. A verdict which shows upon its face that it is a finding for punitive damages only is, in effect, dual in its nature. It is not only a finding for punitive damages, but also for actual damages, that are merely nominal, and, therefore, 'not so substantial as to require expression in their verdict.' "
This assignment of error cannot be sustained.
IV. The appellant complains of error in the order settling the case, in that it required the printing of the evidence in full and not in narrative form. This exception is sustained, and the costs of appeal are denied to the respondent.
The judgments appealed from are affirmed, but without costs of appeal.
Mr. Chief Justice Gary and Mr. Justice Watts concur.
Mr. Justice Marion concurs in the result.