“Cease exhibiting your Hood,” I said severely. “In another case $10,000 was obtained for something or other, when if the man had been killed outright his friends would only have got $5,000.[602] But in these three cases, new trials were granted, as will always be the way where the damages are so excessive as to strike every one as beyond all measure unreasonable and corrupt, and as showing the jury to have been actuated by passion, corruption, or prejudice.[603] Where, however, a woman had lost one arm and the use of the other, and was so bruised, battered, blackened and injured that she was in constant pain, and her health and memory were impaired, and in three successive trials recovered $10,000, $18,000, and $22,250 respectively, the first two verdicts were set aside, but she was allowed to keep the third.[604] And where one was disabled for two years, $4,500 was held not exorbitant compensation;[605] and in Connecticut, $1,800 to a two year old baby for the loss of a leg and hand were given and retained.[606] And where a man broke his leg in two places, was confined to his room for four or five months during which time the injured leg became shorter than the other, he was allowed to retain $2,000 awarded to him by the jury,[607] and Mr. Rockwell, who had to keep his bed six weeks, suffering great pain the while, and could not attend to his business for several months and had to pay $1,500 to the disciples of Galen, was allowed to keep $12,000 given him by twelve jurymen.[608] But $5,000 for a damaged hand was held too much.[609] As these things rest a great deal in the discretion of the jury they must of necessity be more or less uncertain. But the amount paid by railway companies for compensation for injuries is enormous: the Revere accident, in Massachusetts, a few years ago, cost the company half a million of dollars, and in England between 1867 and 1871 the various companies paid out $10,000,000 for this purpose.”
“Can you sue more than once?”
“No; you must go for all your damages, present and prospective, in one action.”[610]
“What do you actually get paid for?”
“The effect of the accident—both at the present time and in the future—upon one’s health, use of limbs, ability to attend to business and pursue the course of life that one otherwise would have done, the bodily pain and suffering endured, and in fact all injuries that are the legal, direct, and necessary results of the accident.[611] If sufficient time has not elapsed to enable the injury to be properly computed, the trial should be postponed.[612] A jury may be properly asked to consider the fact that the injured one had a reasonable prospect of increasing his income although at the time it was small.[613] In some cases the plaintiff has been allowed to add to his actual damages of loss of time, expense of cure, pain and suffering, and prospective disability, if any—counsel fees not recoverable as taxable costs,[614] but this rule is not now followed.[615] A husband may recover for the expense of the cure of his wife, and for the loss of her services.[616] Expenses incurred by sickness of a wife caused by the death of her child,[617] and damages for premature labor, and birth of a still-born child caused by collision, are recoverable.[618] One young lady, who was seriously injured by the upsetting of a passenger car, sought to get additional damages because the prospects of her forming a matrimonial alliance were lessened by her injuries, but the poor thing failed in her attempt for lack of evidence on the point, and because her attorney had neglected to insert the special claim in the declaration.”[619]
“Oh that was too bad,” said Jones, “for the desire of marriage—her chances of which had been lessened—arises naturally from the principle of reproduction which stands next in importance to its elder born correlative, self-preservation, and is equally a fundamental law of existence: it is the blessing which tempered with mercy the justice of the expulsion from Paradise; it was impressed upon the human creation by a benevolent Providence, to multiply the images of Himself, and so promote His own glory and the happiness of his creatures. Not man alone but the whole animal and vegetable kingdoms are under an imperious necessity to obey its mandates. From the lord of the forest to the monster of the deep; from the subtlety of the serpent to the innocence of the dove; from the celastic embrace of the mountain Kalima to the descending fructification of the lily of the plain, all nature bows submissively to this primeval law. Even the flowers which perfume the air with their fragrance and decorate the forests and the fields with their hues, are but curtains to the nuptial bed. The principles of morality, the policy of nations, the doctrines of the common law, the law of nature and the law of God, unite in condemning any act which hinders people entering into the holy estate of wedlock.”[620]
“My conscience, Tom Jones, how did you become master of such mighty and glowing strains of high toned eloquence,” I asked, as I “astonied stood and blank.”
“Oh, I have an action for breach of promise coming on to-morrow, and I thought I would see if I knew the peroration of my address to the jury.”
“Did you compose it?” I asked.
“Not quite. Mr. Justice Lewis, of Pennsylvania, originally uttered the words in giving judgment in a will case. Now then,” said Jones, after a pause, “what about the employee that was killed.”