McColman v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad

64 S.E. 781, 150 N.C. 707, 1909 N.C. LEXIS 133

• Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
• Decided: May 21, 1909
• Status: Published

Opinion

Connor, J.

The plaintiff noted a number of exceptions to tbe ruling of bis Honor upon tbe competency of testimony. Tbey were not pressed on tbe argument, and we find no merit in tbem. It was conceded tbat plaintiff did not sustain -any substantial damage other than inconvenience and discomfort. Tbe portion of tbe charge to which exception was taken and pressed upon our attention is as follows: “Tbe plaintiff must also show tbat be received injuries as tbe direct and proximate cause of tbe alleged negligence by tbe defendant.” “Has tbe plaintiff satisfied you, by tbe greater weight of evidence, tbat tbe defendant was negligent, and has be also satisfied you, by tbe greater weight of evidence, tbat as tbe result and proximate result of tbat negligence tbat be himself suffered tbe injuries of which be complains ? If so, your answer to this issue would be ‘Yes.’ But if be failed to so satisfy you, by tbe greater weight of evidence, your answer to tbe first issue would be ‘No.’ ” Tbe learned counsel earnestly contends tbat if bis Honor bad submitted tbe issues tendered by him, and tbe jury bad found tbat defendant was guilty of a breach of tbe duty which it owed him as a passenger, be would have been entitled to nominal damages, which would have entitled him to ask for punitive damages upon tbe theory tbat tbe negligence was willful and wanton. Tbe difficulty which be encounters is found in tbe fact tbat upon a properly framed issue tbe jury acquit tbe defendant of any breach of duty or negligence. It is difficult to see bow tbe question of punitive damages can arise when no cause of action is established. Tbe plaintiff’s rights and the defendant’s duty are fixed by tbe terms of tbe contract, and this tbe jury finds has not been broken. This put an end to tbe action.

We have examined tbe record and find

No Error.