Cumberland Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Baker
Cumberland Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Baker
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
Under the facts of this case it was error, to submit the question of exemplary damages to the consideration of the jury.
βIt has been held in this state that punitive damages may he recovered only in cases where the acts complained of are characterized by malice, fraud, oppression, or willful wrong evincing a disregard of the rights of others. There must be some element of one or more of the qualities or properties named, relating to the acts made the ground of the action, before exemplary damages can be inflicted.β Railroad v. Marlett, 78 Miss., 872 (29 South. Rep., 62). Accepting as true all the facts stated by appellee in reference to the removal of the telephone after his refusal to pay the agreed rental for the month which had just ended, none of the elements necessary to characterize the act as wanton, willful, oppressive, and malicious existed. It may be that the manager or other employe of the appellant misinterpreted the rules established by the company to be enforced in such contingencies; but.if this be true, it would only authorize the recovery of compensatory damages, unless the actions of the employes were not only wrong, but committed with a knowl
. We refrain from entering upon any discussion of the relative rights of telephone companies and patrons where, from atmospheric conditions, defective appliances, or other similar causes, inefficient and unsatisfactory service is rendered by the telephone companies. This is an important question, and we prefer to leave it until presented for necessary decision.
JReversed and remanded.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Cumberland Telephone and Telegraph Company v. Walter L. Baker
- Cited By
- 4 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Damages. Exemplary. When not recoverable. A telephone company is not subjected, to liability for exemplary damages by the acts of its manager in removing the telephone from the residence of a patron and requiring him, in sending long-distance messages, to prepay charges and send them from the exchange, when such patron, on the claim of poor service, had refused to pay full rental for his residence telephone, in the absence of evidence of wanton, oppressive, insulting, or willful conduct on the part of the manager.