The complaint does not allege facts sufficient to bring plaintiff's claimed special damages to the knowledge of the defendant at the time the ticket was purchased or the flight was to be made. There is considerable authority to the effect that the defendant is not liable for such special damages under such circumstances. See Einbinder v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 205 S.C. 15, 30 S.E.2d 765, 154 A.L.R. 704; Milhous v. Atlantic Coast Line R. R. Co., 75 S.C. 351, 55 S.E. 764; Towles Arnett v. Atlantic Coast Line R. R. Co., 83 S.C. 501, 65 S.E. 638. In the Einbinder case, supra, the Court in 205 S.C. at page 19, 30 S.E.2d at page 767 says:
Messrs. J. Lewis Cromer and James P. Craig, of Columbia, for Appellant, cite: As to His Honor's erring in failingto grant Defendant's motion for a new trial or, in the alternative,for judgment non obstante veredicto because the proofdoes not show that there was sufficient notice given Defendantto charge them with any special damages sustained byPlaintiff: 127 S.C. 493, 12 S.E. 356; 40 S.C. 524, 19 S.E. 67; Black's Law Dictionary, Damages: subheading special damages, p. 469; 106 S.C. 377, 91 S.E. 301; 9 Exch. 341; Simpson on Contracts, Consequential damages, Sec. 196, pp. 395-396; 15 Am. Jur. Damages, Sec. 329; 13 Am. Jur.2d Carriers, Sec. 379; 207 F. 387; 85 S.C. 19, 67 S.E. 11; 128 S.C. 344, 122 S.E. 858; 78 S.C. 327, 58 S.E. 1013; 82 S.C. 468, 64 S.E. 413; 81 S.C. 536, 62 S.E. 872: 83 S.C. 501, 65 S.E. 638; 181 S.C. 203, 186 S.E. 283; 13 Am. Jur.2d Carriers, Sec. 379; Restatement of the Law of Contracts, Sec. 330, p. 509; 106 S.C. 377, 91 S.E. 301; 15 Am. Jur. Damages, Sec. 329. Frank A. Graham, Jr., Esq., of Columbia, for Respondent, cites: As to the Appellant's having notice at the time of thecontract, of circumstances from which Appellant could reasonablyexpect that damages might ordinarily, naturally,and necessarily result from a breach of the contract: 222 S.C. 121, 71 S.E.2d 800; 194 S.C. 534, 10 S.E.2d 25; 83 S.C. 501, 65 S.E. 638; 49 USCA 20 Para. 11 of the Interstate Commerce Act; 13 Am. Jur.2d 873 Para. 389; 82 S.C. 468, 64 S.E. 413; 147 U.S. 591, 616-617; 291 Fed. 882, 884; aff'd (2d Cir.) 291 Fed. 57, cert. denied, 263 U.S. 706; 14 Ill. 156, 157; 327 U.S. 251, 265; 1 Cir., 61 F.2d 455, 459; 218 N.Y.S. 287: 244 S.C. 228, 136 S.E.2d 291; 253 S.C. 296, 170 S.E.2d 372; 252 S.C. 462, 166 S.E.2d 825; 245 S.C. 107, 139 S.E.2d 477.
From Judgment for Plaintiffs, the Defendant appeals. Mr. Francis R. Stack, of New York City, and Messrs.Nelson, Mullins Grier, of Columbia, S.C. Counsel for Appellant, cite: As to Nature of Damages: 25 C.J.S., Sec. 2, p. 456 and p. 457; 198 Ky., 202, 248 S.W. 508; 194 S.C. 543, 10 S.E.2d 25; 13 C.J.S., Sec. 223, p. 442; 71 S.C. 29, 55 S.E., 537; 71 S.C. 211, 50 S.E., 789; 71 S.C. 82, 49 S.E., 4; 79 S.C. 157, 60 S.E., 437; 40 S.C. 528, 19 S.E., 67; 72 S.C. 290, 51 S.E., 773; 83 S.C. 501, 65 S.E., 638; 85 S.C. 19, 67 S.E., 11; 124 U.S. 444, 31 L.Ed., 479; 154 U.S. 1, 38 L.Ed., 883. As toNecessity For Defendant Having Notice Of Special CircumstancesCausing Special Damages To Occur: 9 Exch., 341, 156 Eng. Reprint, 345, 5 Eng. Rul. Cs., 502; 4 O S.C. 528, 19 S.E., 67; 72 S.C. 290, 51 S.E., 773; 74 S.C. 496, 55 S.E., 113; 81 S.C. 536, 62 S.E., 872; 154 U.S. 1, 38 L.Ed., 883; 124 U.S. 444, 31 L.Ed., 479; 71 S.C. 82, 49 S.E., 4; 71 S.C. 211, 50 S.E., 789; 73 S.C. 264, 53 S.E., 421; 79 S.C. 157; 83 S.C. 501, 65 S.E., 683; 81 S.C. 536, 62 S.E., 872; 85 S.C. 19, 67 S.E., 11; 79 S.C. 155, 60 S.E., 437; 223 N.Y., 32, 119 N.E., 76, L.R.A., 1918-F, 1049; 95 APP. Div. (N.Y.), 78. As toNecessity For Defendant To Known Vendee Could Not ProcureMerchandise Elsewhere: 255 N.Y., 33, 173 N.E., 913, 88 A.L.R., 1426; Rest. Law Of Contracts, Sec. 330, Illustration 2, p. 512; Id., Illustration 9, p. 514. As to Rule AppliedIn Federal Courts: 48 St. L., 1064; 251 U.S. 27; 276 U.S. 252; 264 U.S
Y.C. Weathersbee, Esq., of Ridgeland, for Appellant, cites: As to plaintiff's damages being too vague and uncertain,and not proven: 1 Dudley 180, As to Trial Judgeerring in permitting the re-opening of the testimony: 218 S.C. 554, 63 S.E.2d 465; 208 S.C. 171, 37 S.E.2d 535. As to verdict being far in excess of contractprice: 113 S.C. 84, 100 S.E. 892. D.N. Rivers, Esq., of Ridgeland, for Respondent, cites: As to Trial Judge properly exercising his discretion in reopeningcase for additional testimony: 69 S.C. 468, 48 S.E. 464; 2 Hill 319. As to the verdict not being contraryto the evidence and not in excess of the amount provenby the evidence: Cheaves 149; 214 S.C. 263, 52 S.E.2d 199; 83 S.C. 501, 65 S.E. 638; 25 C.J.S. 581. April 4, 1955.
9 Ann. Cas., 790; 77 S.C. 185; 57 S.E., 724; 76 S.C. 193; 56 S.E., 954; 9 L.R.A. (N.S.), 1218; 11 Ann. Cas., 834; 74 S.C. 296; 71 S.C. 211; 50 S.E., 78. Special damages where knowledge that breach would injurebusiness: 91 S.C. 417; 83 S.E., 449; 56 S.E., 974; 77 S.C. 182; 57 S.E., 724; 74 S.E., 1069. Allegation irrelevantwhen no connection with cause of action: 97 S.C. 394; 50 S.C. 54; 73 S.C. 21; 63 S.C. 381. Carrier's dutyto shipper: 57 S.E., 724. Mr. N.B. Barnwell, for respondent, cites: Exception violatesrules of Supreme Court: 64 S.C. 313; 42 S.E., 159; 93 S.C. 367; 96 S.E., 986; 95 S.C. 382; 76 S.E., 1087; 116 S.C. 375; 108 S.E., 150; 132 S.C. 335; 128 S.E., 358; 108 S.C. 145; 93 S.E., 716. Irrelevant matter andredundant matter differentiated: 50 S.C. 57; 27 S.E., 545; 60 S.C. 381; 38 S.E., 609; 73 S.C. 21; 52 S.E., 736; 148 S.C. 446; 146 S.E., 420. Special damages cannot berecovered without notice of special circumstances: 76 S.C. 237; 56 S.E., 974; 78 S.C. 327; 58 S.E., 1013; 83 S.C. 501; 65 S.E., 638; 89 S.C. 483; 72 S.E., 15; 106 S.C. 377; 91 S.E., 301. Defective pleadings: 90 S.C. 79; 72 S.E., 637; 93 S.C. 80; 76 S.E., 32. December 8, 1931.
Action by John M. Givens against North Augusta Electric and Improvement Company. Defendant appeals. Messrs. Boykin Wright, Geo. T. Jackson and J.B. Salley, for appellant. cite: Defendant must have notice of specialdamages and must contract with reference thereto: 83 S.C. 501; 2 Benj. on Sales 1122, 1124, 1129, 1142; 71 S.C. 211; 81 S.C. 536; 72 S.C. 395; 25 S.C. 68. He musthave notice of special circumstances at time of contracting: 83 S.C. 501; 85 S.C. 19; 71 S.C. 82; 73 S.C. 264; 55 S.E.R. 764; 74 S.C. 286; 71 S.C. 211; 72 S.C. 395; 25 S.C. 68; L.R., 3 C.P. 499; 9 Ex. 341; 2 Benj. on Sales 1136. Remote and speculative damages: 69 Am. Dec. 748; 70 S.C. 16; 25 S.C. 68; 21 N.W.R. 752; 19 Ga. 420; 30 Ga. 577; 74 Ga. 233. Motion to strike out the allegationsof these damages should have been granted: 70 S.C. 8. Punitive damages not recoverable unless fraud isshown: 77 S.C. 187; 70 S.C. 108; 3 Parsons 169; Woods Mayne on Dam. 61; Sedg., sec. 603; 13 Cyc. 190; 68 Ga. 190; 1 Jaggard on Torts 22, 24; 79 Ga. 360; 84 Ga. 416; 54 S.C. 498. Rule for assessing damages: 81 S.C. 181; 82 S.C. 468; 70 S.C. 8. Messrs. C.E. Sawyer and John F. Williams, contra.
Action by J.N. Moore against Atlantic Coast Line R.R. Co. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Messrs. W.F. Dargan and P.A. Willcox, for appellant. Mr. Dargan, cites: Consignee of freight can alone maintainaction: 25 S.C. 216; 23 S.C. 339; 50 S.C. 137; 79 S.C. 158: No notice of special damages: 81 S.C. 536; 23 S.C. 498; 83 S.C. 501. Act, 24, Stat., 671, does not apply tointerstate shipment: 81 S.C. 162. 169. Messrs. Miller Lawson, contra, cite: Right of plaintiffto maintain this action: 78 S.C. 8; 6 Ency., 610; 4 Elliot on R.R., 1483, 1693-4; 21 Ency., P. P., 652; 4 S.C. 387; 25 S.C. 216; 38 S.C. 86; 82 S.C. 471; 50 S.C. 514. Special damages recoverable: Street's Found. of Legal Liab., 446; 4 Elliott on R.R., 1730; 71 S.C. 85; 76 S.C. 198; 6 L.R.A., U.S., 1058; 77 S.C. 185. 24 stat., 671, innowise interferes with interstate commerce: 8 Fed. St. Ann., 429, 461; 109 N.C. 279; 63 S.C. 181; 78 S.C. 36, 57; 81 S.C. 69; 26 R.L.A., 698; 23 N.W., 871; 8 Words Phrases, 7503-4; 81 S.C. 162. Plaintiff entitled to reliefunder prompt shipment statute: 82 S.C. 242; 177; 81 S.C. 71; 77 S.C. 277; 77 Conn., 106; 147 Ala., 573.
September 5, 1969.William E. Jenkinson, Esq., of Kingstree, for Appellant, cites: As to there being no proof of damages in the causeof action for fraud: 32 A.L.R.2d 226, Sec. 23; 12 Rich. 290; 97 S.E.2d 403, 231 S.C. 184; 37 Am.Jur.2d 462, Fraud and Deceit, Sec. 344; 37 C.J.S. 408, Sec. 103; 153 S.E.2d 399; 115 S.E.2d 799, 237 S.C. 121; 192 A. 177; Anno. 110 A.L.R. 1218; 78 N.E.2d 185, 122 Mass. 513; 37 Am. Jur.2d 390, Fraud and Deceit, Sec. 292. As to there being no trespass,sufficient to support the second course of action: 70 S.E.2d 244, 221 S.C. 236; 52 Am. Jur. 854, 956, Secs. 25, 27; 101 A.L.R. 994; 49 Am. Jur. 794, Statute of Frauds, Sec. 493; 270 Ill. 372, 110 N.E. 507, Ann. Cas. 1916E 1256; 187 S.E. 349, 181 S.C. 303; 87 C.J.S. 985, Trespass, Sec. 30; 275 N.Y.S. 355, 242 App. Div. 415; 32 Am. Jur. 225, Trespass, Sec. 241; 12 A.L.R.2d 1210. As to the verdict being defective: 229 S.C. 252, 92 S.E.2d 639; 2 S.E. 985, 99 S.C. 71; 65 S.E. 638, 83 S.C. 501. As to the verdict being undulyliberal or excessive: 231 S.C. 351, 98 S.E.2d 798; 15 Am. Jur., Damages, Sec. 205, p. 623; 106 S.E.2d 258, 233 S.C. 567; 226 S.C. 430, 85 S.E.2d 729; 124 S.E.2d 585, 240 S.C. 26; 157 S.E.2d 578, 244 S.C. 493; 141 S.E.2d 129, 245 S.C. 461. Messrs. Connor Connor, of Kingstree, for Respondents, cite: As to there being sufficient proof of damages to supportthe verdict: 120 S.E. 439; 117 S.E. 299; 37 Am.Jur.2d 388, Fraud and Deceit, Sec. 292; 37 Am. Jur. 2d, Fraud and Deceit, Sec. 344; 256 App. Div. 544, 11 N.Y.S.2d 491. As to the cause of action for trespass: 19 S.C.L. 404; 70 S.E.2d 244, 221 S.C. 236; 34 S.C.L. 477; 32 Am. Jur. 97, Landlord and Tenant, Sec. 87; 34 S.C.L. 465; 19 S.C.L. 260. As to therebeing no requirement that the trial Judge instruct the juryto separate actual and punitive damages: 167 S.C. 74, 165 S.E. 781; 190 S.C. 170, 2 S.E.2d 681.
Burroughs Green, of Conway, for Appellant, cite: As to the paragraphs of the complaint which the TrialJudge refused to strike, and the evidence he admitted overobjection, being irrelevant, immaterial and prejudicial: 105 S.C. 25, 89 S.E. 467; 170 S.C. 395, 170 S.E. 666; 227 S.C. 481, 88 S.E.2d 598; 230 S.C. 383, 95 S.E.2d 636; 238 S.C. 584, 121 S.E.2d 213. Winston W. Vaught, Esq., of Conway, for Respondent, cites: As to trial Judge properly refusing Appellant's motionsto strike: 240 S.C. 75, 124 S.E.2d 602; 252 F. Supp. 800; 176 S.C. 345, 180 S.E. 197; 128 S.C. 344, 122 S.E. 858; 83 S.C. 501, 65 S.E. 638; 105 S.C. 25, 89 S.E. 467; 170 S.C. 395, 170 S.E. 666; 227 S.C. 481, 88 S.E.2d 598; 208 S.C. 292, 38 S.E.2d 18; 234 S.C. 218, 107 S.E.2d 344; 231 S.C. 545, 99 S.E.2d 391; 212 S.C. 325, 47 S.E.2d 785. February 21, 1969.
This has been repeatedly held in cases where both were sued, and the verdict was against the employer only. White v. Text-book Co., 150 Ia 27, 129 N.W. 338; Dunshee v. Standard Oil Co., 165 Ia 627, 146 N.W. 830; Hobbs v. Railroad Co., 171 Ia 624, 152 N.W. 40, LRA 1917E, 1023; Arnett v. Railroad Co., 188 Ia 540, 176 N.W. 322."