{
  "id": 11271976,
  "name": "R. H. PIERSON v. WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Pierson v. Western Union Telegraph Co.",
  "decision_date": "1909-05-05",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "559",
  "last_page": "562",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "150 N.C. 559"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 326,
    "char_count": 5559,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.452,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.22383782585142e-08,
      "percentile": 0.38511762654888376
    },
    "sha256": "310f91c676731223f7d326b49ec21efbbd1589f6a679c31d687193aa0877980e",
    "simhash": "1:6883a1f30b0ae638",
    "word_count": 944
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:55:20.077008+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "R. H. PIERSON v. WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Brown, J.\nThe message was filed with defendant company as a night message, for transmission on Saturday, 13 October, 1906, at 8 P. M. It was delivered to the plaintiff on Monday morning, between 9 and 10 o\u2019clock. That this is gross negligence is not open to discussion. Assuming tbat it was bled and accepted as a night message, under the rules of the company, it should have been delivered next morning about 8 o\u2019clock, according to the testimony of\u2018 defendant\u2019s operator. It was not received at Lenoir until 9 :42 A. M. Sunday, and when received at Lenoir it Was addressed to the care of Jim Better instead of Jim Booth, but there is no evidence that plaintiff is chargeable with that error. There is no evidence of any effort being made Sunday morning to find plaintiff or Jim Better in Lenoir, although the former resided within two hundred yards of the telegraph office. We think his Honor did not err in directing the jury that if they believed the evidence to answer first issue \u201cYes*\nThe real defense of the defendant is based upon the theory that if the telegram had been d\u00e9livered on Sunday morning, according to contract, the plaintiff could not have reached States-ville in time to attend the funeral, and that therefore the plaintiff has failed to show that defendant\u2019s negligence was the proximate cause of the injury. It is plain that there was no tra,in leaving Lenoir on Sunday morning which he could have taken, as the Only Sunday train lef-t at 5 A. M.; but plaintiff testified that he would have gone to Statesville Sunday morning had he received the message, and that he could have gotten there for the funeral by driving to Hickory. The possibility of such an achievement was contested by defendant, but we think his Honor properly submitted the question to the jury when he told them \u201cthat the plaintiff must show to your satisfaction that he could have gone to Statesville before the funeral.\u201d Hpon this contention his Honor fairly submitted to the consideration of the jury the evidence and facts relied on by defendant as well as plaintiff.\nIt is further contended that there is no evidence that the plaintiff suffered any mental anguish.\nThe character of the message put defendant upon notice of its importance to the sendee and that it was sent for his benefit. The testimony shows'that the dying child was plaintiff\u2019s niece, with whom he had lived in hN brother\u2019s house, and that he was mftch attached to her. It is true that plaintiH does not use as strong language in endeavoring to portray his grief as is sometimes employed, but facts sometimes speak louder than words, and both together niade out a case sufficiently strong to be submitted to the jury.\nNo Error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Brown, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "W. C. Newland, Thomas Newland and Lawrence Wakefield for plaintiff.",
      "Avery & Avery and George H. Fearons for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "R. H. PIERSON v. WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY.\n(Filed 5 May, 1909.)\n1. Telegraphs \u2014 Negligence\u2014Office Hours \u2014 Efforts to Deliver \u2014 Defenses.\nThe observance of reasonable office hours is not a valid defense to the delayed delivery of a message by a telegraph company, when it is shown that it was received on Saturday night as a night message, delivered on Monday morning between 9 and 10 o\u2019clock, and under the rules of the company it appeared that it should have been delivered on Sunday morning to the addressee, who resided within a short distance of the telegraph office, and no effort was made to do so.\n2. Telegraphs \u2014 Messages\u2014Negligence\u2014Failure to Deliver \u2014 No * Train \u2014 Evidence\u2014Questions for Jury \u2014 Instructions.\nWhin it appears that the delivery of a telegram announcing an extreme illness had been negligently delayed by the defendant telegraph company from S A. M. Sunday morning until between 9 and 10 A. M. Monday morning, that no train ran from that place on Sunday which plaintiff could have taken, and the defense was that defendant\u2019s negligence ivas not the proximate cause of the injury, for that the plaintiff could not have reached his destination before the funeral had the message been promptly delivered, testimony of plaintiff tending to show he could have driven a great distance through \u201cthe country and have taken a train at another station in time was sufficient evidence to be submitted to the jury, under an instruction that such tact must be shown by the plaintiff to the satisfaction of the .jury.\n3. Telegraphs \u2014 Messages\u2014Notice of Importance \u2014 Relationship\u2014 Mental Anguish \u2014 Evidence Sufficient.\nA telegram announcing the dying condition of a child, with request to \u201ccome,\u201d puts the company upon notice of its importance to the sendee and that it was sent for his benefit; and when the testimony shows that the child was a niece, to whom sendee was. much attached, and had lived with her in his brother\u2019s house, it is sufficient evidence for the jury to consider in awarding damages for mental anguish.\nActioN tried before Ward, J., and a jury, at August Term,. 1908, of Caldwell.\nAction for damages, arising from delay in delivering a telegram to plaintiff, as follows:\n\u201cStatesville, N. 0., October 13, 1906.\n\u201cR. H. Pieeson,\nLenoir, N. G.\n\u201cCome to Statesville at once. -Hamp\u2019s child dying.\n\u201cJ. H. Holden.\u201d\nThese issues were submitted:\n1. \u201cWas the defendant guilty of negligence in respect to the transmission and delivery of the telegram to the plaintiff, R. H. Pierson ?\u201d Answer: \u201cYes.\u201d\n2. \u201cIf so, was the plaintiff, R. H. Pierson, injured thereby?\u201d Answer: \u201cYes.\u201d\n3. \u201cWhat damages, if any, has the plaintiff sustained?\u201d Answer : \u201cThree hundred dollars.\u201d\nFrom the judgment rendered defendant appealed.\nW. C. Newland, Thomas Newland and Lawrence Wakefield for plaintiff.\nAvery & Avery and George H. Fearons for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0559-01",
  "first_page_order": 603,
  "last_page_order": 606
}