Lipman v. Atlantic Coast Line R.
108 S.C. 151, 1917 S.C. LEXIS 220, 93 S.E. 713 (1917)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A common carrier is liable for damages for mental suffering inflicted on a passenger by the insulting language of its employee, even in the absence of any physical injury, because the contract of carriage implies a duty to provide courteous and respectful treatment.
Facts:
- Plaintiff purchased a train ticket from defendant for travel from Savannah, Georgia, to Ridgeland, South Carolina.
- Aboard the train, Plaintiff offered the conductor cash fare to Monteith, a station where the train was not scheduled to stop, stating he would pay the remaining fare from that point.
- The conductor refused the tendered fare and threatened to eject Plaintiff from the train.
- To avoid ejection, Plaintiff surrendered his ticket for the entire journey to the conductor.
- After the conductor accepted the ticket, he spoke to Plaintiff in a rude and angry manner in the presence of other passengers.
- The conductor called Plaintiff a 'lunatic' whose 'place was in a lunatic asylum'.
- The conductor also stated he would be glad to give Plaintiff 'two black eyes' if he were off duty.
- Plaintiff suffered humiliation and mental anguish as a result of the conductor's language, but no physical injury occurred.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff filed an action for damages for mental anguish against the defendant railroad company in the Circuit Court, a South Carolina trial court.
- Defendant demurred to the complaint, arguing it was legally insufficient because it did not allege any physical injury.
- The Circuit Court sustained the demurrer and dismissed the plaintiff's complaint.
- Plaintiff appealed the dismissal to the Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a common carrier liable for damages for a passenger's mental suffering caused by its employee's insulting language, even if there is no accompanying physical injury?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Hydrick
Yes. A common carrier is liable for damages for mental suffering inflicted upon a passenger by its employee's insulting language, even without physical injury. The special relationship between a carrier and passenger imposes on the carrier an absolute duty of protection and courteous treatment, which is implied in the contract of carriage. While the general rule often requires physical injury to recover for mental suffering, that rule does not apply to this special relationship, similar to how it does not apply in cases of libel, slander, or breach of promise of marriage. To recognize a duty of protection from insults but deny liability for mental suffering—the only likely result of such insults—would be a contradiction in terms. Plaintiff's initial conduct in tendering cash fare did not justify the conductor's language, especially since the insults occurred after the ticket dispute was resolved and Plaintiff's rights as a passenger were settled.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Fraser
No. The law of South Carolina, as established in prior cases like Norris v. Railway, does not permit recovery of damages for mental suffering in the absence of bodily injury, except under specific mental anguish statutes related to telegraph companies. This established principle should apply in this case, precluding the plaintiff's claim.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a significant exception to the traditional impact rule, which generally bars recovery for purely emotional distress without a corresponding physical injury. The court creates a special duty for common carriers, grounding liability in the unique contractual relationship with passengers, which implies a promise of courteous and respectful treatment. This precedent elevates the standard of care for carriers, making them responsible not only for the physical safety of passengers but also for their protection from dignitary torts like insults and humiliation committed by employees. The ruling significantly strengthens passenger rights and influences how courts in the future would analyze claims for emotional harm in contexts involving special relationships.
