MENTAL SUFFERING. Where mental suffering is the natural and proximate result of a tort or of a breach of contract it is a proper subject of compensation, but standing alone it will not support an action of which actual damages is the basis ; Hale, Dam. §§ 39, 40.
Damages for mental suffering are allow able where there has been a malicious, in tentional or wilful invasion of plaintiff's rights, although there was no physical in jury; Rowan v. Telegraph Co., 149 Fed. 550.
A jury is not confined to compensatory damages, but may consider the sorrow, men tal distress and bereavement of a father su ing for the wrongful and negligent killing of his son ; Kelley v. R. Co., 58 W. Va. 216, 52 S. E. 520, 2 L. R. A. (N. S.) 898.
It was the common-law rule that mental suffering unconnected with physical injury or other element of damage to person or property, is not a cause of action for which damages may be recovered ; Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Rogers, 68 Miss. 748, 9 South. 823, 13 L. R. A. 859, 24 Am. St. Rep. 300, L. R. 10 Q. B. 122 ; 9 H. L. Cas. 577 ; Curtin v. Telegraph Co., 13 App. Div. 253, 42 N. Y. Supp. 1109 ; Connell v. Telegraph Co., 116 Mo. 34, 22 S. W. 345, 20 L. R. A. 172, 38 Am. St. Rep. 575 ; Wolf v. Stewart, 48 La. Ann. 1431, 20 South. 908; Joch v. Dankwardt, 85 Ill. 331; City of Salina v. Trosper, 27 Kan. 544; Johnson v. Wells, Fargo & Co., 6 Nev. 224, 3 Am. Rep. 245 ; Russell v. Telegraph Co., 3 Dak. 315, 19 N. W. 408 ; International Ocean Telegraph Co. v. Saunders, 32 Fla. 434, 14 South. 148, 21 L. R. A. 810.
Damages for a personal injury may prop erly include compensation for pain and suf fering, both physical and mental; and also permanent injuries, which it is fair to be lieve will result in the future ; Denver & A.,. G. R. Co. v. Roller, 100 Fed. 738, 41 C. C. A. 22, 49 L. R. A. 77 ; or resulting from a miscarriage caused by fright from the fall ing of an incandescent light' bulb on plain tiff's temple ; Jones v. R. Co., 23 App. Div. 141, 48 N. Y. Supp. 914 ; but the right to re cover for mental suffering resulting from bodily injuries is restricted to the person who received the bodily injury. Distress caused by sympathy for another's suffering is not an element of damages ; Woodstock Iron Works v. Stockdale, 143 Ala. 550, 39 South.
335, 5 Ann. Cas. 578 ; and likewise mental distress from seeing a pet cat mangled by a dog, in the absence of wilfulness of the dog's owner, is not recoverable ; Buchanan v. Stout, 123 App. Div. 648, 108 N. Y. Supp. 38.
This continues to be the prevailing rule with respect to all actions upon contracts of which the consideration is something hav ing a specific value in money. In such cases mental suffering is treated as not being with in the limitations of the doctrine of proxi mate cause and natural consequences, as •set tled in Hadley v. Baxendale, 9 Exch. 341; Pullman Palace Car Co, v. Fowler, 6 Tex.
Ciy. App. 755, 27 S. W. 268; Thompson v. Telegraph Co., 107 N. C. 449, 12 S. E. 427.
A line of cases contra is based upon a deci sion in So Relle v. Telegraph Co., 55 Tex. 308, 40 Am. Rep. 805, which has been follow ed in several states ; Western Union Tele graph Co. v. Henderson, 89 Ala. 510, 7 South. 419, 18 Am. St. Rep. 148 ; Wadsworth v. Tel. Co., 86 Tenn. 695, 8 S. W. 574, 6 Am. St. Rep. 864; Reese v. Telegraph Co., 123 Ind. 294, 24 N. E. 163, 7 L. R. A. 583 ; Shep ard v. Ry. Co., 77 Ia. 54, 41 N. W. 564; Por ter v. R. Co., 71 Mo. 66, 36 Am. Rep. 454; Leach v. Leach, 11 Tex. Civ. App. 699, 33 S. W. 703; but the doctrine of these cases has been the subject of severe criticism; Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Rogers, 68 Miss. 748, 9 South. 823, 13 L. R. A. 859, 24 Am. St. Rep. 300.
Substantial damages may be recovered for mental anguish, irrespective of physical in jury caused by negligently delaying the de livery of a telegram; Cashion v. Telegraph Co., 123 N. C. 267, 31 S. N. 493; Cowan v. Telegraph Co., 122 Ia. 379, 98 N. W. 281, 64 L. R. A. 545, 101 Am. St. Rep. 268; Gray v. Telegraph Co., 108 Tenn. 39, 64 S. W. 1063, 56 L. R. A. 301, 91 AM. St. Rep. 706 ; Postal Telegraph Cable Co. v. Terrell, 124 Ky. 822, 100 S. W. 292, 14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 927; Ar kansas & L. Ry. Co. v. Stroude, 82 Ark. 117, 100 S. W. 760; contra, Western Union Tele graph Co. v. Shenep, 83 Ark. 476, 104 S. W. 154, 12 L. R. A. (N. S.) 886, 119 Am. St. Rep. 145.