Millmore v. Boston Elevated Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 04 April 1908
• Citation: 84 N.E. 468,198 Mass. 370
• Parties: MILLMORE v. BOSTON ELEVATED BY. CO.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

198 Mass. 370

84 N.E. 468

MILLMORE v. BOSTON ELEVATED BY. CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

April 4, 1908

COUNSEL

Vahey Innes & Vahey and Philip Mansfield, for plaintiff.

Endicott P. Saltonstall and Sanfore H. E. Freund, for defendant.

OPINION

HAMMOND J.

In this commonwealth it is settled that in an action by a married woman to recover damages for a personal injury an impairment of her capacity to perform labor may be considered as an element of the damages.Jordan v. Middlesex R. R.,138 Mass. 425;Harmon v. Old Colony R. R.,165 Mass 100, 42 N.E. 505, 30 L. R. A. 658, 52 Am. St. Rep. 499;Nolin v. Pearson,191 Mass. 283, 77 N.E. 890, 4L R. A. (N. S.) 643, 114 Am. St. Rep. 605.The reasoning upon which the doctrine is based shows that the principle is applicable whether she ever mas worked or not.Harmon v. Old Colony R. R.,165 Mass. 104, 105, 42 N.E. 505, 30L. R. A. 658, 52 Am. St. Rep. 499.

It is argued however by the defendant that, even if this be so, yet the declaration in this case is not broad enough to cover such an element of damages.The declaration states that by reason of the accident 'the plaintiff was thrown to the ground and caused to suffer great and severe bodily injury and anguish of mind.'It is to be noted that there is no claim in this case that the plaintiff was engaged in any special calling or occupation.The only claim is for such damage as is the natural and necessary result upon one's capacity for labor of such a bodily injury as she received.Whatever may be the practice elsewhere, we think that in this commonwealth it has been the practice to allow the jury under an allegation like this to take any consideration as an element of damages, not only the actual pain resulting from a physical injury but the impairment, if any, which is the manifest and necessary result to an ordinary person of such an injury.In Baldwin v. Western R. R., 4 Gray, 333 evidence that the plaintiff was educated and a school teacher was held to have been wrongly admitted upon the question of damages, the declaration alleging only that she received great hurt and damage.Bigelow, J., in giving the opinion, hints at the proper distinction when he says: 'In the present case, the evidence offered by the plaintiff to show her education and learning, and that she was a school teacher, could have had no relevancy or application to the question at issue between the parties,...