Skip to main content
· 6/20/1904

Davis v. Tacoma Railway & Power Co.

Citations

  • 35 Wash. 203
  • 66 L.R.A. 802
  • 77 P. 209
  • 1904 Wash. LEXIS 437

Syllabus

<p>Appeal — Notice—Service on Co-Parties — Dismissal. An appeal by one of two joint wrongdoers from a judgment against both of them must be dismissed where no notice of appeal was served upon the co-party, and no joinder was made in the subsequent appeal of such co-party.</p> <p>Torts — Personal Indignities — Defamation of Character— Public Resorts — Right to Remain At — Damages for Excluding From — Words Not Actionable per se. Any person not belonging to a proscribed class who goes to a public pleasure resort or park, and is not guilty of improper conduct, may recover for personal indignities inflicted by an employe of the parties owning and in charge of the place, in being publicly ordered out in an insulting manner as an unfit and improper person, without showing that the language used was actionable per se, if any special damages were suffered.</p> <p>Same — Malice or Wilful Conduct. In such a case, it is not necessary for the plaintiff to show malice or a wanton or wilful wrong in order to recover actual damages, the same being material only to enhance the damages.</p> <p>Same — Measure of Damages — Mental Suffering Irrespective of Bodily Injury. A wrong having been committed by the defendant in ordering the plaintiff out of a public park where she had a right to be, it is proper to instruct that the jury, in estimating the - damages, may consider the plaintiff’s mental suffering, even though no bodily injury was inflicted.</p> <p>Same — Damages —Excessive Verdict Due to Passion or Prejudice. In an action for personal indignities inflicted upon the plaintiff in being ordered from a public resort as a disreputable woman, in which it appears that it was due to a mistake of the defendant’s employe, who immediately apologized therefor, and the defendant also openly apologized for the mistake, and the evidence showing actual damages is very meager, a verdict for the sum of ?750 is not warranted, and is clearly the result of passion and prejudice, requiring a reversa

Judges: Fullerton

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.