Colbert v. R.I. Co.

Decision Date20 April 1906
Citation67 A. 446
PartiesCOLBERT v. RHODE ISLAND CO.
CourtRhode Island Supreme Court

Exceptions from Superior Court Providence County.

Action by Minnie F. Colbert against the Rhode Island Company. Verdict for plaintiff.

Defendant brings exceptions. New trial granted, and case remitted for further proceedings.

Comstock & Canning, for plaintiff. Henry W. Hayes, Frank T. Easton, Lefferts Hoffman, and Alonzo R. Williams, for defendant.

PER CURIAM. The defendant's exceptions relating to the introduction of the "life tables" and to the refusal of the court to charge "that the jury cannot consider specific trouble with the plaintiff's heart as an element of damage in this case" must be sustained. Life tables are not admissible in the case of abnormal individuals or persons suffering from incurable diseases. The declaration contains no averment of heart injury, and proof thereof was therefore inadmissible. Special damages must be specially alleged. McGregor v. R. I. Co., 27 R. I. 85, 60 Atl. 761. The court should have given the instruction, although evidence relating to heart disease had been admitted without seasonable objection. The testimony shows that the affection of the heart, if any exists, is not a necessary consequence of the injuries complained of in the declaration. For these reasons a new trial must be granted.

Case remitted to the superior court for further proceedings.

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Mississippi Cotton Oil Co. v. Smith
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • March 15, 1909
    ...15 Am. & Eng. Ency. Law, p. 881; Railroad Co. v. Crudup, 63 Miss. 303; Telephone Co. v. Anderson, 89 Miss. 745, 41 So. 263; Colbert v. Railroad Co., 67 A. 446; Railway v. Berry, 102 S.W. 89; Foster v. Railroad Co., 72 Miss. 886; Kamerick v. Castleman, 21 Mo.App. 587; Bernheim v. Dibrell, 66......
  • Mississippi Cotton Oil Co. v. Smith, 13,450
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • March 15, 1909
    ...15 Am. & Eng. Ency. Law, p. 881; Railroad Co. v. Crudup, 63 Miss. 303; Telephone Co. v. Anderson, 89 Miss. 745, 41 So. 263; Colbert v. Railroad Co., 67 A. 446; Railway v. Berry, 102 S.W. 89; Foster v. Railroad Co., 72 Miss. 886; Kamerick v. Castleman, 21 Mo.App. 587; Bernheim v. Dibrell, 66......
  • Leeds v. Cetenich
    • United States
    • Rhode Island Supreme Court
    • April 20, 1906

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT