Mahoney v. Boston Elevated Ry.
| Decision Date | 21 May 1915 |
| Citation | 221 Mass. 116,108 N.E. 1033 |
| Parties | MAHONEY v. BOSTON ELEVATED RY. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Elias Field, Charles C. McCarthy, and Brown, Field & Murray, all of Boston, for plaintiff.
John T Hughes, of Boston, for defendant.
The only question presented relates to evidence as to damages recoverable for a personal injury arising out of a tort. The plaintiff offered evidence without objection, tending to show physical inability to do his usual work consequent upon the injury. He conducted on his own account a tailoring business consisting of both making and repairing clothes. Previous to the accident, he worked at the business himself, doing the cutting needed in the making of new clothes and sometimes assisting in the repairing. He received the customers, took their measurements, and did the marking for repairs. Both before and after the accident, he always had working for him at least two people, sometimes more, and part of the work was done by outside tailors. After the accident, he was able to do none or little of his work for a considerable time. He was unable to grasp his business as before. His memory failed him and trade fell off. Upon this state of the evidence the court admitted testimony against the exception of the defendant, tending to show that the profits of his business for the six months before the accident were $1,200, and for the corresponding period after the accident $500. The point to be decided is whether this evidence was competent.
The principles upon which damages for personal injury caused by tort are to be assessed are settled. In general the plaintiff is entitled to such sum of money as will compensate him for the loss actually sustained by the injury to his person. It is personal and not property damage which may be recovered. As bearing upon the question of compensation, disability and impaired capacity are to be considered. If one receives wages or a salary, the amount lost in this regard from the enforced inability to work is a proper element to be considered in assessing damages, but it is not strictly recoverable as wages or salary. The loss of time and the diminution of earning power in the past and in the future are to be considered in estimating the damages. Sibley v Nason, 196 Mass. 125, 131, 81 N.E. 887, 12 L. R. A. (N S.) 1173, 124 Am. St. Rep. 520, 12 Ann. Cas. 938. Profits hoped to be derived in the future from a business are too remote and uncertain to be regarded as an element in estimating damages. Ballou v. Farnum, 11 Allen, 73, 76. That is not a personal injury, but a property damage. Decrease in income is an element to be weighed, when it arises from inability to exercise personal effort or especial efficiency directly producing the income; but not when it is interwoven with profits derived from a business in which capital is employed and to the success of which the service, skill and zeal of others contribute. Personal earnings may be considered, but the more or less uncertain profits from a business venture arising from an investment and from ability in employing and managing labor cannot be taken into account. Where the element of personal expertness is the essential and dominant factor and the capital invested is insignificant as compared with the earnings and merely incidental to the individual capacity which is the fundamental cause of the income, then the income stands on the same basis as wages or salary and may be shown. On this ground the income of the physician or other professional man or author may be shown, although there may be some money invested in a library, instruments and similar...
To continue reading
Request your trial