## Facts

- T. J. Newsome operated a business dealing in timber and rosin in North Carolina and depended on periodic “freshets” (high water) to float rafts of goods to Wilmington.
- Newsome claimed a freshet was then running and he had timber and rosin ready to be rafted to market during that limited window.
- Newsome arranged for “raft hands” to build and run the rafts, but alleged they would not enter the water to work unless he supplied whisky.
- The work site was in a “dry” county, which Newsome contended made obtaining whisky more difficult and made a seller more likely to verify the sender’s identity.
- Newsome delivered a telegram to Western Union to be transmitted to a merchant, requesting expedited shipment of “four gallons of corn” (understood in context as corn whisky) by express to “Mints (Mintz) Siding,” and indicating urgency and purpose (including “raft hands”).
- Newsome testified that he told the telegraph operator the whisky was needed to secure the raft hands’ labor for the freshet.
- Western Union negligently altered the signature during transmission, so the message as delivered appeared to be signed by “T. J. Sessoms” (or “Sessons”) instead of “T. J. Newsome.”
- The merchant, not knowing the purported sender, did not ship the whisky.
- Newsome alleged that without the whisky the raft hands refused to work; the freshet subsided; and Newsome lost the chance to raft his timber and rosin during that rise in the river.
- Newsome also claimed further business harm tied to the missed shipment, including loss from later price changes and the protest of drafts he drew in anticipation of the goods reaching Wilmington.
- Newsome sued Western Union for consequential damages, including alleged lost profits and related business losses caused by the mis-transmitted telegram. A jury found negligence and awarded Newsome $524.10; Western Union appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Western Union’s negligent mis-transmission of the sender’s name made it liable for substantial consequential damages (lost profits and related business losses) allegedly flowing from the failure to receive whisky for raft hands during a freshet.
2. Whether, even if Newsome informed the telegraph operator of the message’s purpose, the claimed damages were too remote, contingent, and uncertain to be recovered beyond nominal damages.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of North Carolina held that the claimed lost profits and related business damages did not meet the requirement of certainty and direct causal connection and were too remote and speculative.
- The court explained that the asserted losses depended on multiple contingencies (including whether the whisky would have been shipped, whether the raft hands would have worked, and whether the rafting and market outcomes would have occurred as claimed).
- The court also stated that because a telegraph company is a regulated public-service carrier compelled to accept messages at fixed rates, notice to its agent of the sender’s purpose does not mean the company has agreed to answer for all claimed special damages.
- The judgment for substantial damages was reversed, with recovery limited to nominal damages on the showing made.

## Legal Principles

- Only damages that flow directly and naturally from a telegraph company’s negligence in transmitting a message, and that are certain in nature and in causal source, are recoverable.
- Damages that rest on conjecture about future events—such as anticipated profits dependent on labor decisions, weather or river conditions, successful completion of a venture, and later market prices—are too remote and not recoverable as special damages.
- A telegraph company, treated as a regulated public agent required to accept messages at rates set by public authority, is not deemed to have contracted for all alleged special damages merely because the sender informed the operator of the message’s purpose.
- Where the plaintiff cannot show with reasonable certainty that the mis-transmission caused the claimed downstream loss (as opposed to loss arising from intervening choices and uncertain events), the plaintiff is limited to nominal damages for the negligent transmission itself.

## Conclusion

In *Newsome v. Western Union Telegraph Co.*, the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed a substantial verdict against Western Union after it negligently changed Newsome’s name on a telegram ordering whisky for raft hands, holding that Newsome’s claimed lost profits and related business injuries from missing a freshet opportunity were contingent and speculative rather than the direct and certain result of the transmission error, so only nominal damages were available.


Newsome v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 153 N.C. 153, 69 S.E. 10 (1910)