Torts. Injury Caused by Fright. Damages

  • Published on
    09-Jan-2017

  • View
    214

  • Download
    2

Transcript

<ul><li><p>The Yale Law Journal Company, Inc.</p><p>Torts. Injury Caused by Fright. DamagesSource: The Yale Law Journal, Vol. 28, No. 7 (May, 1919), p. 707Published by: The Yale Law Journal Company, Inc.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/786793 .Accessed: 25/05/2014 08:22</p><p>Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms &amp; Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp</p><p> .JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.</p><p> .</p><p>The Yale Law Journal Company, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toThe Yale Law Journal.</p><p>http://www.jstor.org </p><p>This content downloaded from 194.29.185.63 on Sun, 25 May 2014 08:22:37 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions</p><p>http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=yljhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/786793?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp</p></li><li><p>RECENT CASE NOTES 707 </p><p>Pac. I33. (2) The second theory is that the surety holds the securities in order to be sure of exoneration (and not merely reimbursement), and the best way to secure this is to let him assign the securities to the creditor, or to let the creditor himself collect by direct action. This theory is not generally adopted, but if it is sound it would apply in the present case. No fund was deposited by the defendant with the surety company, as a trust fund, nor was the defend- ant's promise made to the surety company as trustee. Nevertheless, if the defendant's promise to the surety company was to save it harmless, to exonerate and not merely to reimburse, then the performance of the promise involves a payment directly to the creditor. The creditor might well be regarded as a third-party beneficiary. Complete exoneration of the surety company requires full settlement with the creditor, the fact that the surety company is insolvent being immaterial in this respect. This would perhaps be otherwise if the surety company has been totally dissolved. See Hasbrouck v. Carr, supra. On this theory, the rights of both the surety company and the creditor will be fully vindicated by action in the creditor's name against the defendant, without refer- ence to the complexities of subrogation. To this action the surety company should be made a party. </p><p>TORTS-INJURY CAUSED BY FRIGHT-DAMAGES.-The defendant's chimpanzee escaped, entered the plaintiff's house and attacked her children. The plaintiff drove the animal away but became hysterical and ill because of fear for her own and children's safety. She sued the owner of the animal for the injuries caused by the fright. Held, that the plaintiff could recover. Lindley v. Knowl- ton (i9i8, Cal.) I76 Pac. I40. </p><p>No recovery can be had for pure fear not resulting in bodily effects. Chittick v. Phila. Rapid Transit Co. (I909) 224 Pa. I3, 73 Atl. 4; Reed v. Ford (i908) 33 Ky. L. Rep. I029, II2 S. W. 6o0, i9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 255. Nor where the fear is wholly for the safety of a third person. Sanderson v. Northern Pacific Ry. (I9o2) 88 Minn. i62, 92 N. W. 542. By the weight of authority, fear for one's self which is followed by bodily suffering is ground for the recovery of damages. McGee v. Vanover (I9I2) I48 Ky. 737, I47 S. W. 742; Samarra v. Allegheny Valley St. Ry. (1913) 238 Pa. 468, 86 Atl. 287; Denver R. Co. v. Roller (i900, C. C. A. 9th) ioo Fed. 738; contra, Mitchell v. Rochester (i896) I5i N. Y. I07, 45 N. E. 354. Also fear may be considered as an operative element and affect the amount of damages when it results either from or in physical suffering, or produces a visible injury to the nervous system. Watson v. Augusta B. Co. (0903) I24 Ga. 121, I L. R. A. (N. S.) II78, iio Am. St. I57; Conley v. United Drug Co. (1914) 2i8 Mass. 238, io5 N. E. 975. On remote- ness of mental anguish as barring recovery, see (i9i6) 25 YALE LAW JOURNAL, 243; on mental suffering for desecration of the dead, see (i9i6) 28 ibid. 508, and CURRENT DECISIONS, infra, sub tit. TORTS. </p><p>TORTS-LABOR UNIONS-BANNERING AND STRIKE-"RIGHT TO WORK IN ONE'S </p><p>OWN BUSINESS."-The constitution of the defendant union excluded all theatre owners. The plaintiff, a theatre owner, insisted upon operating his own moving picture machines part of the time, to save expense. To force him to employ union men to do this work the union men ceased to work for him and the defendant union published in the official labor paper that the plaintiff was "unfair," and caused a banner bearing that message to be paraded in front of the theatre. The plaintiff, whose business fell off in consequence, applied for an injunction pendente lite. It was refused and the plaintiff appealed. Held, that the desire to force the plaintiff to replace his own services in his own business with those of the defendant's members was not such a motive as justified the defendant's acts injuring the plaintiff's business; but that the </p><p>This content downloaded from 194.29.185.63 on Sun, 25 May 2014 08:22:37 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions</p><p>http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp</p><p>Article Contentsp. 707</p><p>Issue Table of ContentsThe Yale Law Journal, Vol. 28, No. 7 (May, 1919), pp. 621-720Causa and Consideration in the Law of Contracts [pp. 621-646]The Federal Courts and a Uniform Law [pp. 647-655]The Later History of the Rule of Destructibility of Contingent Remainders [pp. 656-672]CommentsClaims Provable in Receivership Proceedings [pp. 673-680]Effect of War on Business Associations [pp. 680-685]Estoppel by Misrepresentation and the Recording Acts [pp. 685-690]Massachusetts Trusts and the Income Tax [pp. 690-691]Recent Holdings of General Interest [pp. 692-698]</p><p>Recent Case NotesAdministrative Law. Power of Board of Health to Locate Pesthouses. Cannot Create Nuisance [p. 699]Alien Enemy. Disability to Sue. Pleading in Defense [p. 699]Alien Enemy. Partnership. Action in Name of Firm with One Enemy Partner Not Inhibited [p. 699]Contracts. Illegality. Confessed Judgment. Equitable Relief [pp. 699-700]Criminal Law. Criminal Responsibility for Act of Servant. Fine [pp. 700-701]Estoppel by Misrepresentation. Effect of Recording Acts. Failure to Record Equitable Claim [p. 701]Husband and Wife. Fraudulent Conveyance in Contemplation of Marriage. Recovery of Dower Right [pp. 701-702]Libel and Slander. Liability of Corporation [pp. 702-703]Police Power. Contagious Diseases. Compulsory Physical Examination [p. 703]Receivers. Allowance of Claims [pp. 703-704]Receiving Stolen Goods. Obtaining Property under False Pretenses. Statutory Larceny [pp. 704-705]Specific Performance. Mutuality of Obligation [pp. 705-706]Suretyship. Subrogation of Creditor to Indemnity Bond Given to Surety by a Stranger [pp. 706-707]Torts. Injury Caused by Fright. Damages [p. 707]Torts. Labor Unions. Bannering and Strike. "Right to Work in One's Own Business" [pp. 707-708]Trusts. Massachusetts Business Trusts Not "Associations" under Income Tax Act [pp. 708-709]Wills. Joint and Mutual. Contract Not to Revoke [p. 709]</p><p>Current DecisionsAdministrative Law. Findings of Fact. Conclusiveness of Administrative Determination [p. 710]Bills and Notes. Payee as Holder in Due Course. Effect of N. I. L. [p. 710]Corporations. Distribution of Dividends. Arbitrary Withholding on the Part of Directors [pp. 710-711]Evidence. Dying Declarations. "Shot without Provocation" Not an Opinion [p. 711]Evidence. Pedigree. Relationship. Community-Reputation [p. 711]Interstate Commerce. Federal Employers' Liability Act. Workmen's Compensation [pp. 711-712]Indictment. Grand Jury. Public Examination of Witnesses [p. 712]Insurance. Form of Policy. Noncompliance with Statute. Effect of Approval by Commissioner [p. 712]Life Insurance. Assignment. Change of Beneficiary [pp. 712-713]State Liability to Suit. Injunction against Tort. State Will Not Be Enjoined from Bombing Practice in Aviation School [p. 713]Torts. Mental Suffering. Delay in Transporting Dead Body [p. 713]Trusts. Expectancy. Subject of Execution [pp. 713-714]Unfair Business. Restriction on Resale Price. Refusing to Sell to Customers Who Cut Prices [p. 714]War Powers. Federal Control of Railroads. Jurisdiction of State Courts [p. 714]Water-Rights. Mill Privileges. Ownership of Soil. Privilege of Fishing [pp. 714-715]Workmen's Compensation. Disfigurement. Dual Compensation [p. 715]Workmen's Compensation. Injury Due to Third Person's Fault. Election of Remedy [p. 715]</p><p>Book ReviewsReview: untitled [pp. 716-717]Review: untitled [pp. 717-718]Review: untitled [pp. 718-719]Review: untitled [pp. 719-720]</p></li></ul>