{
  "id": 11272545,
  "name": "J. A. McCOLMAN v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "McColman v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad",
  "decision_date": "1909-05-21",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "707",
  "last_page": "709",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "150 N.C. 707"
    }
  ],
  "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": 313,
    "char_count": 5142,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.463,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.856319230494445e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3048642990382837
    },
    "sha256": "ff2f613b41a8b3b80c56d4d41b2b4b8e2e25b159c7de087cb6ded4d9d2d08cfc",
    "simhash": "1:9264bba9b136a841",
    "word_count": 870
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:55:20.077008+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "J. A. McCOLMAN v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Connor, J.\nThe 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: \u201cTbe plaintiff must also show tbat be received injuries as tbe direct and proximate cause of tbe alleged negligence by tbe defendant.\u201d \u201cHas 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 \u2018Yes.\u2019 But if be failed to so satisfy you, by tbe greater weight of evidence, your answer to tbe first issue would be \u2018No.\u2019 \u201d 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\u2019s rights and the defendant\u2019s 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.\nWe have examined tbe record and find\nNo Error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Connor, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Gibson & Russell for plaintiff.",
      "McLean, McLean & Snow for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "J. A. McCOLMAN v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY.\n(Filed 21 May, 1909.)\nCarrier of Passengers \u2014 Contracts \u2014 Charterer of Trains \u2014 Negligence \u2014 Verdict\u2014Exemplary Damages \u2014 Immaterial as to Issue.\nIn an action for exemplary damages for the alleged wanton and willful failure of defendant carrier to comply with its contract to furnish and run for plaintiff an excursion train, the verdict of the jury, under competent evidence and a properly framed issue, finding that the defendant was not guilty of any breach of duty thereunder, puts an end to the action and renders unnecessary the form of the issue submitted upon the question of defendant\u2019s wanton and willful acts.\nActioN tried before Long, J., and a jury, at October Term, 1908, of Scotland.\nThe record discloses the following case:\nPlaintiff, on 5 July, 1904, entered into a contract with defendant company as \u201ccharterer\u201d of an excursion train, consisting of one baggage car and not less than five passenger coaches, to be run from Gibson, N. C., to Wilmington, N. O., and return. The schedule was set out in the contract, \u201csubject to such changes as may be made necessary for the safe operation of the train by other train schedules of the company and such unavoidable delays as may be occasioned by damages to the equipment of the company.\u201d The other provisions of the contract are not material to tbe decision of this appeal. The train was furnished in accordance with the contract, and the excursion run oh 27 July, 1904. It seems that, by reason of the weight of the rails on the portion of the road from the main line to Gribson, it was necessary to use a light engine, which was exchanged at Fayetteville for another of heavier weight. On the return trip, when the train reached Fayetteville, some difficulty was experienced in making- the exchange, and a delay occurred of some five hours, from 11 o\u2019clock P. M. until sometime the following morning. The plaintiff alleged that the engine was defective and of insufficient capacity, that the cars were not supplied with water, and that in this and other respects the defendant company was guilty of reckless, wanton and willful negligence, whereby he sustained large damages, etc. The plaintiff, in apt time, requested the court to submit the following issues to the jury:\n1. \u201cDid the defendant wrongfully fail to transport the plaintiff, as alleged in the complaint ?\n2. \u201cWas the failure to transport the plaintiff willful and wanton ?\n3. \u201cWhat compensatory damages, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover ?\n4. \u201cWhat exemplary damages, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover?\u201d\nThe court declined to submit the issues, and the plaintiff excepted. The following issues were submitted to the jury:\n1. \u201cWas the plaintiff injured by the negligence of the defendant, as alleged in the complaint ?\n2. \u201cWas the plaintiff injured by the wanton and willful negligence of the defendant, as alleged in the complaint ?\n3. \u201cWhat damages, if any, has plaintiff sustained?\u201d\nPlaintiff excepts.\nThe jury responded to the first issue \u201cNo,\u201d and did not answer the second and third. Judgment was rendered, upon the verdict, for defendant, and plaintiff excepted and appealed. The exceptions ar\u00e9 discussed in the opinion.\nGibson & Russell for plaintiff.\nMcLean, McLean & Snow for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0707-01",
  "first_page_order": 751,
  "last_page_order": 753
}