Braithwaite v. Hall

46 N.E. 398, 168 Mass. 38, 1897 Mass. LEXIS 147
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedFebruary 26, 1897
StatusPublished
Cited by32 cases

This text of 46 N.E. 398 (Braithwaite v. Hall) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Braithwaite v. Hall, 46 N.E. 398, 168 Mass. 38, 1897 Mass. LEXIS 147 (Mass. 1897).

Opinion

Holmes, J.

The demurrer must be overruled. The meaning of the declaration is plain and sufficient. Nowadays we do not require pleadings to be guarded against all the possible distortions of perverse ingenuity. The single collision which caused the damage to the plaintiff’s person and to his bicycle was one cause of action. Un trespasse ne serra mye deux foitz puny.” Y. B. 5 Ed. II. 134, 135. Doran v. Cohen, 147 Mass. 342, 344. Bliss v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad, 160 Mass. 447, 455.

The ruling as to damages was correct. It is true that, when a man is allowed to prove his average earnings or the wages actually lost by him, they are proved as a measure of the value of the time and power to labor of which he has been deprived, not [40]*40as themselves recoverable eo nomine. But the distinction does not appear to be material in this case. There is nothing to show that the wages were not reasonable, and a proper measure of the value of the plaintiff’s time. It is argued for the defendant, that the true measure is the market value of the average wages of a man of the plaintiff’s average capacity working in the same employment. But the eases cited do not sustain the position, and there are many decisions adopting the test of the individual’s experience. If any distinctions in- the value of men’s time are admitted there is no reason why the whole actual difference should not be recognized. To this extent a tortfeasor takes the risk of the value of what he destroys. Murdock v. New York & Boston Despatch Express Co. 167 Mass. 549, and cases cited. See also Lake Shore Michigan Southern Railway v. Frantz, 127 Penn. St. 297, 308.

Demurrer overruled; exceptions overruled.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Baxter v. Baker
451 P.2d 456 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1969)
Kane v. Fields Corner Grille, Inc.
171 N.E.2d 287 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1961)
Piersall v. Harmon's Express, Inc.
15 Mass. App. Dec. 8 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1957)
Mills v. De Wees
93 S.E.2d 484 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1956)
Lawrence v. O'Neill
58 N.E.2d 140 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1944)
Cameron v. Johnquest
5 Mass. App. Div. 401 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1940)
Leave v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.
28 N.E.2d 483 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1940)
Dearden v. Hey
24 N.E.2d 644 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1939)
Pillsbury v. Kesslen Shoe Co.
7 A.2d 898 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1939)
Doherty v. Ruiz
18 N.E.2d 542 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1939)
Wurm v. Perry
3 Mass. App. Div. 253 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1938)
Barrows v. Checker Taxi Co.
195 N.E. 112 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1935)
Noble v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.
191 N.E. 641 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1934)
Booth v. Frankenstein
245 N.W. 191 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1932)
National Lead Co. v. City of New York
43 F.2d 914 (Second Circuit, 1930)
Bryant v. Illinois Central Railroad
252 Ill. App. 428 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1929)
Chancey v. McBride
251 Ill. App. 157 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1929)
Antokol v. Barber
248 Mass. 393 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1924)
Donoghue v. Holyoke Street Railway Co.
246 Mass. 485 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1923)
Hayes v. Morris & Co.
119 A. 901 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1923)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
46 N.E. 398, 168 Mass. 38, 1897 Mass. LEXIS 147, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/braithwaite-v-hall-mass-1897.