Murdock v. New York & B. Despatch Exp. Co.
| Decision Date | 24 February 1897 |
| Citation | 167 Mass. 549,46 N.E. 57 |
| Parties | MURDOCK v. NEW YORK & B. DESPATCH EXP. CO. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Robert
O. Harris, for plaintiff.
Benton & Choate, for defendant.
This is an action for running the plaintiff down by a runaway horse. It is not for us to consider what our verdict would be on the printed report, but only whether, on the evidence, the presiding judge could have taken it from the jury. The horse was left standing close behind another wagon, and, it would seem likely, caught its bridle on a T-shaped handle of a door in the rear of the wagon, pulled its bridle off, and in this way was started on its run. There was testimony that the horse was fastened by a strap to a 20-pound weight when he was left. But there was no weight attached at the moment of the accident, and that fact and the escape of the horse are some evidence that he was left without one. We cannot say that the jury were not warranted in finding the defendant negligent. See McDonald v. Snelling, 14 Allen, 290, 297; Barnes v. Chapin, 4 Allen, 444; Telegraph Co. v. Quinn, 56 Ill. 319; McCahill v. Kipp, 2 E.D. Smith, 413; Rumsey v. Nelson, 58 Vt. 590, 3 A. 484; Garlick v. Dorsey, 48 Ala. 220; Goodman v. Taylor, 5 Car. & P. 410.
The plaintiff was allowed to testify to his average monthly earnings, and an exception was taken. We are of opinion that the evidence was admissible. There is no question of pleading about it. A part of the immediate damage in all such cases is that the plaintiff is prevented from working. To ascertain the economic value of what he is deprived of, there seems to be no better help than to take his average earnings in the past, subject, perhaps, to the cautions to be found in the English cases. Phillips v. Railroad Co., 5 C.P.Div. 280, 286, 290, 5 Q.B.Div. 78, 81, 87, 4 Q.B.Div. 406, 408; Armsworth v. Railroad Co., 11 Jur. 758, 760, ad fin.; Ehrgott v. Mayor, etc., 96 N.Y. 264, 275, 276; Express Co. v. Nichols, 33 N.J.Law, 434, 437; Railroad Co. v. Dale, 76 Pa.St. 47; Welch v. Ware, 32 Mich. 77, 81; Parshall v. Railway Co., 35 F. 649, 651; McNamara v. Village of Clintonville, 62 Wis. 207, 210, 22 N.W. 472; Collins v. Dodge, 37 Minn. 503, 35 N.W. 368; Myhan v. Power Co., 41 La.Ann. 964, 969, 6 So. 799. See Ballou v. Farnun, 11 Allen, 73, 79.
Exceptions overruled.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shea v. Same
...affords some indication of the economic value of his loss through the impairment of his working capacity (Murdock v. New York & Boston Despatch Express Co., 167 Mass. 549, 46 N. E. 57) and evidence of loss of wages or salary is admissible on that issue. Under the rule of damages followed in......
-
Doherty v. Ruiz
... ... admitted: evidence of earnings before and after the injury ... (Murdock v. New York & Boston Despatch Express Co. 167 ... Mass. 549; O'Brien v ... ...
-
Armstrong v. Spokane Intern. Ry. Co.
... ... permanent. For examples see Murdock v. N.Y. & B. Dispatch ... Express Co., 167 Mass. 549, 46 N.E. 57; ... Notes: ... [1] Reported in full in the New York ... Supplement; reported as a memorandum decision without opinion ... ...
-
Kane v. Fields Corner Grille, Inc.
... ... Murdock v ... New York & Boston Despatch[341 Mass. 646] Exp. Co., 167 Mass ... ...