Atlanta St. R. Co v. Jacobs
| Decision Date | 10 November 1891 |
| Citation | 88 Ga. 647,15 S.E. 825 |
| Parties | Atlanta St. R. Co. v. Jacobs. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Street Railway—Action for Personal Injuries —Declaration—Damages—Instructions.
1. A declaration by a married woman against s street railway company for injury to her per son, which alleges a definite personal injury which incapacitated her to walk without crutches, embraces, by necessary implication, the impairment of her capacity to labor.
2. It is not error to describe as pain and suffering a loss of capacity to labor occasioned by a physical injury, nor is it error to call attention to it separately, after instructing the jury touching other pain and suffering.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from city court of Atlanta; Howard Van Epps, Judge.
Action by Esther Jacobs against the Atlanta Street Railroad Company for personal injuries. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error. Affirmed.
John L. Hopkins & Son, for plaintiff in error.
Hoke & Burton Smith and W. H. Rhett, for defendant in error.
Bleckley, C. J. 1. The contention of the learned counsel for the railroad company is that it was error to submit the impairment of the power of a married woman to labor as a distinct element of damage, and allow her to recover for it. He insists that this damage was not sued for, and that in another part of the charge of the court the entire subject of pain was dealt with; hence the jury were allowed to give for impairment of her power to labor what they pleased, even though it were greatly more than her husband would be entitled to recover were he the plaintiff in the action. It is true that it is not expressly alleged in the declaration that the capacity of Mrs. Jacobs, the plaintiff in the court below, to labor was impaired, but a definite injury to her person is alleged and described, which incapacitated her to walk without the aid of crutches. An injury which disables one from walking without crutches necessarily impairs to some extent ability to labor. It follows that such impairment is embraced by necessary implication in what the declaration alleges. The injury sued for being one which incapacitated the plaintiff to walk without crutches, and consequently one which impaired her ability to labor, compensation for this impairment of her physical perfection was a part of the redress for which the action was brought, and to which the plaintiff, when she verified by evidence the case set out in her declaration, was entitled. According to the declaration, the plaintiff ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mitchell v. Mullen
...enlightened conscience of an impartial jury. Morgan v. Central of Georgia R. Co., 145 Ga. 656 (2), 89 S. E. 760; Atlanta Street R. Co. v. Jacobs, 88 Ga. 647 (2), 15 S. E. 825; Metropolitan Street R. Co. v. Johnson, 90 Ga. 500 (8), 16 S. E. 49; Brunswick Light & Water Co. v. Gale, 91 Ga. 813......
-
Atlanta & W. P. R. Co v. Haralson
...of pain, though no pecuniary loss be shown. Powell v. Augusta & Summerville R. Co., 77 Ga. 192, 200, 3 S. E. 757; Atlanta Street R. Co. v. Jacobs, 88 Ga. 647, 15 S. E. 825; Metropolitan Street R. Co. v. Johnson, 90 Ga. 500, 508, 16 S. E. 49; Brush Electric Light & Power Co. v. Simmonsohn, 1......
-
Wrightsville & T.R. Co. v. Vaughan
... ... earnings or loss of earning capacity as such. Powell v ... Augusta R. Co., 77 Ga. 192, 200, 3 S.E. 757; Atlanta ... Street Ry. v. Jacobs, 88 Ga. 647, 15 S.E. 825; ... Metropolitan R. v. Johnson, 90 Ga. 500, 508, 16 S.E ... 4 ... Taking ... ...
-
Michaels v. Kroger Co.
...to labor" was permanently impaired "such deprivation or impairment can be classed with pain and suffering ..." Atlanta St. R. Co. v. Jacobs, 88 Ga. 647, 652, 15 S.E. 825. Thereafter, a dichotomy arose, where a plaintiff suffered permanent impairment of ability to work, if there was no prior......