Lloyd v. Lloyd

60 Vt. 288
CourtSupreme Court of Vermont
DecidedJanuary 15, 1888
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 60 Vt. 288 (Lloyd v. Lloyd) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Vermont primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Lloyd v. Lloyd, 60 Vt. 288 (Vt. 1888).

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Powers, J.

The plaintiff suffered damage by the wrongful obstruction of his drain. “He might have gone on and sunk the new drain made by the defendants as aforesaid below the outlet of the covered drain at an expense not exceeding $25,” says the referee.

Without taking this precaution he was damaged $100. Which sum is recoverable upon the facts stated in the report? for it is clear that a liability is established.

The general rule is that a plaintiff, suffering damages by the fault of the defendant, may recover the full amount of his damage. But this rule is modified, if the plaintiff’s negligence or misconduct has aggravated or increased such damage..

It is the duty of a person injured by the fault of another to úse all reasonable means to protect himself against injurious consequences. If injured in his person he must attend to his cure. If injured in his estate he must attend to its preservation. If he fails in this duty he cannot gather the fruits of his own negligence.

The plaintiff could have indemnified himself at an expense of $25.00, and this is the legal measure of his damage. Bardwell v. Jamaica, 15 Vt. 438.

Judgment reversed and judgment on the report for the plaintiff for $25.00, and interest from filing of report.

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

Related

Langlois v. Town of Proctor
2014 VT 130 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 2014)
Gover v. Central Vermont Railway Co.
118 A. 874 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1922)
Tormey v. Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District
200 P. 814 (California Court of Appeal, 1921)
Wilson v. . Scarboro
86 S.E. 611 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1915)
Roberts v. Lehl
27 Colo. App. 351 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 1915)
Cromer v. City of Logansport
78 N.E. 1045 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1906)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
60 Vt. 288, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lloyd-v-lloyd-vt-1888.