Cordner v. Hall

• Decision Date: 08 March 1911
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: CORDNER v. HALL.

79 A. 55

84 Conn. 117

CORDNER

v. HALL.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

March 8, 1911.

Appeal from Superior Court, Hartford County; William L. Bennett, Judge.

Action by James Cordner against George H. Hall to recover damages for personal injuries caused by the bite of a dog owned by defendant. There was a verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $250, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

H. O. Bowers, for appellant.

A. Arnott, for appellee.

RORABACK, J. The plaintiff introduced evidence tending to prove these facts: While he was riding on a bicycle along Main street in Manchester, the defendant's dog attacked and bit him on one of his legs, and threw him upon the ground. As a result of this attack, the plaintiff's knee was injured, he suffered much from physical and mental pain, was lame, unable to do any labor for a period of six months, and expended about $11 for medicine and medical attendance. The plaintiff also claimed to have shown that he was still suffering from the injury to his knee, and that the duration of his injuries was uncertain. In the complaint it is alleged that: "The plaintiff has suffered much physical and mental pain, is troubled by a severe twitching of the muscles in the injured leg where said dog bit him, his knee is still swollen and very painful, and he has been obliged to expend $50 for medicines and physician's services and has been incapacitated for all labor up to and at the time of this suit, and has suffered a permanent injury." No evidence of damage to the plaintiff through the loss of time depending upon his peculiar circumstances was admitted by the court.

The first reason of appeal is that the court erred in charging the jury as set forth in the finding. Such an assignment does not comply with the requirements of the statute. Gen. St. 1002, § 798. Assignments of error should be specific. It is not enough to state that the trial court erred in charging the jury as set forth in the finding. Hull v. Thorns, 82 Conn. 647, 649, 74 Atl. 925.

Complaint is made in the second assignment of error that the court mistook the law in instructing the jury that: "If the plaintiff has been incapacitated from carrying on his business, his usual ordinary occupation, why, you should take that into consideration; that is, up to the present time."

It is insisted in argument that, as no special damages had been alleged in the complaint, these instructions were improper. When a person alleges and proves that he has been injured in his person, the law implies that damages result from such injury, and he may recover such damages as necessarily and directly result therefrom under a general allegation in the complaint that damages have been sustained by him by reason of the injury. Smith v. Whittlesey, 79 Conn. 189, 191, 63 Atl. 1085. If a person seeks to recover damages other than such as necessarily and immediately follow from the injury, be must allege such damages and prove them. The rule upon this subject is fully stated in Greenleaf on Evidence (l6th Ed.) vol. 2. § 254, as follows: "All damages must be the result of the injury complained of; whether it consists in the withholding of a legal right, or the breach of a duty legally due to the plaintiff. Those which necessarily result are termed 'general damages,' being shown under the ad damnum or...