{ "id": 1562534, "name": "Western Union Telegraph Company v. Crain", "name_abbreviation": "Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Crain", "decision_date": "1915-03-29", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "13", "last_page": "17", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "118 Ark. 13" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "2 Ark. 246", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "171 S. W. 859", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "115 Ark. 564", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1533745 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/115/0564-01" ] }, { "cite": "102 Ark. 246", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1354035 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/102/0246-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 401, "char_count": 7130, "ocr_confidence": 0.447, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.534500891370078e-08, "percentile": 0.40089538038704187 }, "sha256": "796ef47ce06d170cf134b9e97b8337dfd62b64fbe47d685786759f1d331ef6f3", "simhash": "1:a517ce09c3c62ab1", "word_count": 1245 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:53:29.321926+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Western Union Telegraph Company v. Crain." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Hart, J.\nClever Crain instituted this action against the Western Union Telegraph Company to recover damages -for mental anguish alleged to have been sustained by reason of the negligence of the defendant in failing to deliver a telegram from him to his sister, requesting that \u2022she notify him of his mother\u2019s condition. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, and -the defendant has appealed. The facts are as follows:\nOn the 28th day of June, 1912, the plaintiff, Clever Crain, was working at the Kentucky Club in Hot Springs, Arkansas, and between 7 and 8 o \u2019clock p. m. on that day he received the following telegram:\n\u201cAppleby, Texas, June 28, 1912. \u201cClever Crain, 331 Laurel Street, Hot Springs, Ark.\n\u201cCome home at once. Your mother is very low. Be sure and come.\n\u201cDenis Crain.\u201d\nDenis Crain was a brother of the plaintiff. Plaintiff at once telephoned the defendant company to send him a messenger boy, and soon afterward a messenger boy called at his residence and plaintiff told him he wanted to send a message to Appleby, Texas, -and wanted to pay the charges. The messenger boy told him the message would cost forty cents, and that it would cost fifty cents to deliver the message out from Appleby, and that it would be delivered the next morning. The evidence of defendant tended to show that the messenger boy had no authority to contract for the delivery of the message outside of its delivery limits at Appleby. The plaintiff then sent the message \u00a1sued on, which is as follows:\n\u201cKitty Crain, Appleby, Texas.\n\u201cSend word at once of condition, unable to come, though if worse, will try; can not leave for connection until Sunday morning.\n\u2018 \u2018 Clever Crain. \u2019 \u2019 \u2022\nAppleby is a small town of \u00a1between two and three hundred inhabitants, and Kitty Crain, a sister of the plaintiff, lived about three or three and a half miles from that place. The family of the plaintiff had lived there many years, and was well known in the town of Appleby.\nThe message sued on was delivered to the defendant company at its office in Hot Springs on the afternoon of June 28, which was Friday. On Saturday, June 29, at 1:50 p. m., the following message was delivered at plaintiff\u2019s home:\n\u201cHot Springs, Arkansas.\n\u201cYour night letter 28th, Crain signed same, undelivered. Party in country three miles. Copy mailed. \u2019 \u2019\nThe message was delivered to the plaintiff\u2019s wife, and was given to him on Shis, return home that evening. After the receipt of this message, plaintiff did not wire his sister, and did not pay any further attention to the matter. His mother died on Monday, the first day of July, 1912, betWeen 6 and 7 o \u2019clock in the morning. She was buried on the following Tuesday between 2 and 3 o \u2019clock in the 'afternoon.\nThe residence of the plaintiff\u2019s family in the country was outside the free delivery limits of the telegraph company\u2019s office at Appleby, and the telegram sent by the plaintiff was placed in the postoffice \u00a1at Appleby, and was received 'by Kitty Crain at her home on Tuesday, July 2, between 8 \u00a1and 9 o\u2019clock a. m. The mail \u00a1service leaves Appleby between 7 and 7:15 o \u2019clock a. m., and passes the home of the Crains between 8 and 9 o\u2019clock each morning, except Sunday.\nPlaintiff could have left Hot Springs on any day at 7:15 a. m. and arrived at a station within three miles of \u25a0his mother\u2019s home in Texas between 1 and 2 o \u2019clock a. m. on the next morning. Under the facts and circumstances adduced in evidence, we do not think the plaintiff was entitled to recover.\nUnder the principles of law announced in the case of Western Union Tel. Co. v. Ivy, 102 Ark. 246, if the plaintiff, 'after he received the notice on Saturday, the 29th day of June, that his message had not been delivered because the addressee lived in the country, failed to exercise that degree of care to ascertain the condition of his mother 'before her death or burial that an ordinarily prudent person would have used under similar circumstances,. his failure to use such diligence contributed directly and proximately to his failure to see his mother before her death or to be present at her burial, and the jury should have found for the defendant.\nThe message received by the plaintiff from his brother on June 28, told him to come home at once, that his mother was very low, and to be sure to come. This message on its face told him that his mother\u2019s condition was hopeless and indicated that there was very little possibility of her recovery.\nThe \u2018plaintiff states that he did not start at once because his laundry was out, and on that account it was not convenient for him to go; and that the season at Hot 'Springs was about ended, and he did not wish to return. On this account, he contends, he sent the message sued on to ascertain more definitely her condition. Even when he received the message on the next day, saying that his message was undelivered because the addressee lived in the country, he did not make any effort whatever to communicate with his sister again, but relied on the delivery of his first message. He knew from the message. his brother had sent him that his mother\u2019s death was imminent ; yet he waited for an .answer to his message, knowing that it had not been delivered. Under these circumstances, reasonable minds must have come to the conclusion that, notwithstanding the defendant might have been negligent, the mental anguish of the plaintiff might have been avoided by the exercise of reasonable diligence and ordinary care on bis part, and bis failure to exercise such care and diligence will bar a recovery under the facts of this ease.\nThe plaintiff paid for the transmission of-the message sued on, bnt no recovery of that money is asked. The defendant company denied any liability.' Therefore, under the authority of th\u00e9 W. U. Tel Co. v. Johnson, 115 Ark. 564, 171 S. W. 859, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the cause dismissed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Hart, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "George H. Fearons and Martin, Wootton & Martin, for appellant.", "G. Floyd Huff, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Western Union Telegraph Company v. Crain.\nOpinion delivered March 29, 1915.\nTelegraph companies \u2014 failure to deliver message \u2014 duty of plaintiff. \u2014When plaintiff receives a message telling of the illness of a member of his family, and a 'reply message sent by him to ascertain the condition of his .relative was undelivered .because the addressee lived outside the free delivery limits of the telegraph company, and the defendant company apprised plaintiff of these facts, it will be held that a duty rested upon plaintiff to make further efforts to communicate with his relations, and when he failed to do so, he will be barred from a recovery against the defendant for damages growing out of defendant\u2019s failure to deliver his message.\nAppeal from Garland Circuit Court; Calvin T. Cotham, Judge;\nreversed.\nGeorge H. Fearons and Martin, Wootton & Martin, for appellant.\nThere can he no recovery in this case because the message was interstate, and because appellee\u2019s own negligence would preclude a recovery, even if the Arkansas mental anguish statute were not void as to interstate messages. Western Union Tel. Go. v. Brown, U. S. Sup. Ct., June 22,1914; 171 S. W. (Ark.) 859; 54 S. W. (Ky.) 825; 10-2 Ark. 246.\nG. Floyd Huff, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0013-01", "first_page_order": 35, "last_page_order": 39 }