Sloane v. Southern California Railway Co.

Vol. IV. (N. 8.)

want of liability on the part of the defendant for any damages for mental suffering, and has cited many authorities in support of the proposition that mere mental anxiety, unaccompanied with bodily injury or apprehended peril, does not afford a right of action. To the extent that the term mental suffering" is included in the above instruction, this proposition is inapplicable. The term, as there used, is to be construed with reference to the context in which it occurs.

66

66

The

mental suffering," there named, is not the mental anguish or pain referred to in the above proposition cited by the appellant, but is the mental experience which is concomitant with the insult, indignity, and humiliation named in the instruction. It would be a contradiction of terms to hold that the individual whose pride had been humiliated, or whose dignity had been insulted, had no mental suffering in connection therewith, or that this humiliation and insult did not of themselves constitute mental suffering; that he could have redress for the injured pride, but not for the mental suffering it produced. Although mental suffering alone will not support an action, yet it constitutes an aggravation of damages. when it naturally ensues from the act complained of. 3 Suth. Dam.,

1245.

The real question presented by the objections and exception of the appellant is whether the subsequent nervous disturbance of the plaintiff was a suffering of the body or of the mind. The interdependence of the mind and body is in many respects so close that it is impossible to distinguish their respective influence upon each other. It must be conceded that a nervous shock or paroxysm, or a disturbance of the nervous system, is distinct from mental anguish, and falls within the physiological, rather than the psychological, branch of the human organism. It is a matter of general knowledge that an attack of sudden fright, or an exposure to imminent peril, has produced in individuals a complete change in their nervous system, and rendered one who was physically strong and vigorous weak and timid. Such a result must be regarded as an injury to the body rather than to the mind, even though the mind be at the same time injuriously affected. Whatever may be the influence by which the nervous system is affected, its action under that' influence is entirely distinct from the mental process which is set in motion by the brain. The nerves and nerve centres of the body are a part of the physical

. & Eng

Cas

Sloane v. Southern California Railway Co.

system, and are not only susceptible of lesion from external causes, but are also liable to be weakened and destroyed from causes primarily acting upon the mind. If these nerves, or the entire nervous system, are thus affected, there is a physical injury thereby produced; and, if the primal cause of this injury is tortious, it is immaterial whether it is direct, as by a blow, or indirect, through some action upon the mind.

This subject received a very careful and elaborate consideration in the case of Bell v. Railway Co., L. R. 26 Ir. 428. Mrs. Bell was a passenger upon one of the defendant's trains, and by reason of the defendant's negligence in the management of its train suffered great fright, in consequence of which her health was seriously impaired. She had previously been a strong, healthy woman, but it was shown that, after this occurrence, she suffered from fright and nervous shock and was troubled with insomnia, and that her health was seriously impaired. The jury were instructed that if, in their opinion, great fright was a reasonable and natural consequence of the circumstances in which the defendant by its negligence had placed her, and that she was actually put in fright by those circumstances, and if the injury to her health was, in their opinion, the reasonable and natural consequence of such great fright, and was actually occasioned thereby, the plaintiff was entitled to recover damages for such injury. It was objected to this instruction that, unless the fright was accompanied by physical injury, even though there might be a nervous shock occasioned by the fright, such damages would be too remote. In holding that this objection was not well founded, and that the nervous shock was to be considered as a bodily injury, the court held that, if such bodily injury might be a natural consequence of fright, it was an element of damage, for which a recovery might be had, and, referring to the contention of the defendant, said: "It is admitted that, as the negligence caused fright, if the fright contemporaneously caused physical injury, the damage would not be too remote. The distinction insisted upon is one of time only. The proposition is that, although, if an act of negligence produces such an effect upon particular structures of the body as at the moment to afford palpable evidence of physical injury, the relation of proximate cause and effect exists between such negligence and the injury, yet such relation cannot in law exist in the case of a similar act producing upon the same structures an effect which at a

188

EXPULSION FROM TRAIN

(N. S.)

Sloane v. Southern California Railway Co.

subsequent time—say a week, a fortnight, or a month-must result without any intervening cause in the same physical injury. As well might it be said that a death caused by poison is not to be attributed to the person who administered it, because the mortal effect is not produced contemporaneously with its administration." At the close of its opinion, Lord Chief Baron PALLES says: "In conclusion, I am of the opinion, that, as the relation between fright and injury to the nerve and brain structures of the body is a matter which depends entirely upon scientific and medical testimony, it is impossible for any court to lay down as a matter of law that, if negligence cause fright, and such fright in its turn so affect such structures as to cause injury to health, such injury cannot be a consequence which, in the ordinary course of things, would flow from the negligence, unless such injury accompanied such negligence in point of time." This case is quoted at great length and with approval in the eighth edition of Mr. Sedgwick's treatise on Damages, at section 860. Mr. Beven, in the recent edition of his work on Negligence (volume I, pp. 77-81), also comments upon it with great approval. In Purcell v. Railroad Co., 48 Minn. 134, 50 N. W. 1034, the defendant so negligently managed one of its cars that a collision with an approaching cable car seemed imminent, and was so nearly caused that the attendant confusion of ringing alarm bells and of passengers rushing out produced in the plaintiff, who was a passenger on the car, a sudden fright, which threw her into convulsions, and, she being then pregnant, caused in her a miscarriage, and subsequent illness. The court held that the defendant's negligence was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury, and that it was liable therefor, even though the immediate result of the negligence was only fright, saying: "A mental shock or disturbance sometimes causes injury or illness of body, especially of the nervous system.' See also Canning v. Inhabitants of Williamstown, I Cush. 451; Seger v. Town of Barkhamsted, 22 Conn. 290; Car Co. v. Dupre, 54 Fed. Rep. 646; Stutz v. Railroad Co., 73 Wis. 147, 37 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 187; Razzo v. Varni, 81 Cal. 289. It is a physical injury to the person to be thrown out of a wagon, or to be compelled to jump out, even though the harm done consists mainly of nervous shock." Warren v. Railroad Co., 163 Mass. 484.

The mental condition which superinduced the bodily harm

Cas

. & Eng

Sloane v. Southern California Railway Co.

Cause of

nervous shock is question

for jury.

in the foregoing cases was fright, but the character of the mental excitation by which the injury to the body is produced is immaterial. If it can be established that the bodily harm is the direct result of the condition, without any intervening cause, it must be held that the act which caused the condition set in motion the agencies by which the injury was produced, and is the proximate cause of such injury. Whether the indignity and humiliation suffered by Mrs. Sloane caused the nervous paroxysm, and the injury to her health from which she subsequently suffered, was a question of fact, to be determined by the jury. There was evidence before them tending to establish such fact, and if they were satisfied, from that evidence, that these results were directly traceable to that cause, and that her expulsion from the car had produced in her such a disturbance of her nervous system as resulted in these paroxysms, they were authorized to include in their verdict whatever damage she had thus sustained. Whether the defendant or its agents knew of her susceptibility to nervous disturbance was immaterial. She had the same rights as any other person who might become a passenger on its road, and was entitled to as high degree of care on its part. It was not necessary that this injury should have been anticipated in order to entitle her to a recovery therefor. Civ. Code, $3333. If the facts under which she was excluded from the car would be an act of negligence on the part of the defendant as to any and all persons, whoever might sustain injury by such act would be entitled to recover to the full extent of his injury, irrespective of his previous physical condition or susceptibility to harm. In Railroad Co. v. Kemp, 61 Md. 74, 18 Am. & Eng. R. Cas. 220, and 61 Md. 619, the plaintiff was injured upon a car of the defendant, and thereafter a cancer developed itself upon her breast at the place where she had been hurt. Testimony was given to the effect that such hurt was sufficient to cause the development of the cancer, and that, in the opinion of the experts, they would attribute it to that cause. It was shown that, previous to the accident, she had been in apparently good health and condition. The court held that it was for the jury to determine, from the evidence, whether the cancer did result from the injury, and, if so, that the defendant was liable, even though it had no reason to anticipate such "It is not for the defendants to say that, because

a result.

Sloane v. Southern California Railway Co.

. IV

they did not or could not in fact anticipate such a result of their negligent act, they must therefore be exonerated from liability for such consequences as ensued. They must be taken to know and to contemplate all the natural and proximate consequences, not only that certainly would, but that probably might, flow from their wrongful act." See, also, Fell v. Railroad Co., 44 Fed. Rep. 253.

The court properly left to the jury to determine whether Mrs. Sloane exercised reasonable prudence in undertaking the walk from East Riverside to Colton, and, if so, that the injury sustained by her was a proper element of damage to be recovered. It could not say, as matter of law, or instruct the ́jury, that under the evidence before them, such walk was or was not necessary, or whether the route selected by her was the most feasible; nor would it have been justified in directing them not to allow compensation for any injury sustained by the walk, upon the ground that, if she had waited a few hours, she could have gone upon the cars. Malone v. Railroad Co., 152 Pa. St. 390.

The refusal of the court to strike out certain portions of the complaint as irrelevant is not a ground for reversal of the judgment. The matter embraced therein was relevant to the plaintiff's right of recovery, and they were justified in setting forth in their complaint the several acts of the defendant which constituted the wrong for which they sought redress. The defendant does not claim to have been prejudiced by any of the probative matters contained in these allegations, and, even if this matter might have been properly struck out by the court, after the cause has been tried upon its merits the judgment will not be reversed for such technical error.

The demurrer to the complaint was properly overruled. The cause of action set forth therein is neither ambiguous nor uncertain. It clearly states a single ground of recovery, viz., the unlawful violation by the defendant of the obligation it had assumed to carry Mrs. Sloane to San Diego; and, although the damages caused to her by this violation of its obligation were made up of the injuries to her person, as well as the money paid by her as the consideration of this obligation, they all resulted from the wrong committed by the defendant. It was necessary that she should point out the particulars in which she had sustained injuries from the defendant-the humiliation, injuries to her health, etc.,-in order that evi