The daily morning journal and courier., 1902-05-17

of Time, Etc.
 It must be everywhere admitted that
 money is not an adequate recompense
 for bereavement or for permanent or
 even temporary personal injuries. Few
 persons would in advance voluntarily
 agree to undergo a painful and serious
 mental or physical ordeal for any
 amount of pecuniary reward. But wheA
 injuries have already been sustained,
 when the blow has irrevocably fallen
 then it becomes an interesting and of-
 tentimes very important consideration
 what recovery does the law allow?
 In the first place, it should be ob
 served, the general rule which the law
 prescribes is compensation to the in-
 jured party. That is, the victim of
 physical injuries wrongfully or negli-
 gently inflicted should as nearly as
 money will do it be made whole. This
 is, of course, impossible where one has
 lost limb, been maimed for life, or
 has sustained any permanent impair
 ment of mental or bodily functions. It
 is also impossible to measure in money
 physical or mental suffering. No
 method has yet been devised or scales
 adjusted" it was declared in recent
 Virginia case, 'by which to measure or
 weigh and value in money the degrees
 of pain and anguish of a suffering hu-
 man being, nor ever likely to be-" And
 on another occasion where the action
 was for the loss of foot by little girl
 threee years old, the court said: The
 amount of injury sustained by an in-
 fo nj aqn ha ad
 by any rule of arithmetic any more
 than her body can be made whole by
 dollars and cents"
 The result of all this is that the law
 leaves the amount of recovery in per
 sonal injury cases almost entirely to
 the discretion of the jury, and the
 judges do not or should not interfere
 unless this discretion is abused or, as
 the rule is stated unless the amount of the verdict is so large or so small as to be indicative of ''partiality, prejudice or corruption" on the part of the jury.
 In an action for damages for personal injuries the universal rule is, if re- covery is permitted, that damage may be given for the bodily pain and suffer- ing due to the injuries sutained. Physi cal pain is not, of course. susceptible of measurement by any pecuniary stand ard, but this circumstance is no ground for denying such pecuniary relief IS the law is capable of givng. The jury are not permitted, however, to attempt to compensate the plaintiff for this ele- ment of injuries, in the sense in which that term is employed with reference to pecuniary losses, or damages which can be measured in money, for the simple ! reason that such a thing is impossible. | Compensation involves the notion of an enthusiastically the weighing off l of one thing against another.
 We have all heard of men who, after | losing an arm or leg, still continue, as | they say, to feel pain in the lost mem- | ber. The court of appeals of this state | not very long ago held that a plaintiff ] whose arm had been amputated as re- suit of the injuries received might re- cover for physical pain which seemed | to the plaintiff to come from or to be in the hand and the amputated arm" Physical pain it was said, ''was no less the subject of consideration because the location of it was deceptive"
 This is subject which has given rise to extensive judicial discussion, though 1t has long been settled that there may be a recovery for such mental suffering 4 as Is attendant upon and an inseparable incident of physical pain, as well as in proper cases. for an injury which oper- ates, primarily only, on the mind or nervous system A persons mind, it has been well said is no less a part of his person than his body: the sufferings of the former are, inded, often more acute and lasting than those of the latter, But there canotn, as rule, be a recovery for mere sympathetic mental suffering Otherwise, when ap assenger was injur- ed on railroad train, every friend and even acquaintance would have an ac- lion against the company. And the same rule holds good in the more inti- mate relations of life A husband can- not recover for his own mental suffer- Ing for physical injuries to his wife, nor 2 parent for injuries to a child, though It must be admitted in such cases that | the sympathetic suffering is often both 'eal and intense. There may always t however, as has already been stated, be | ] recovery for such mental sufferings. z IS invariably accompanies physical ] oain--if, indeed, it is not the physical ( pain itself "a It is also proper for the jury to con- Is 'ider that character of mental anguish a which results from a consciousness and t of the disfigurement of I ,ne's person. A plaintiff may recover, 1 t { has been held, for "deformity or inn f of his physical symmetry" A a has been allowed damages for mental suffering due to scar on her l E ace. and probably the same rule would | Q pply in the case of man, if he could | S how that his marked phys ogromy was s ctually a source of mental distrsss to l D i'm. And in an action for damages for d injuries resulting in the plaintiffs per- II nanent lameness, it was held proper to s onsider 'the modification which it put l pon him from having 10 pass through b fe deformed. lame, shorn of his full u roportions of man." u Where personal injuries have been - ustained it is entirely proper for the a lry to augment the damage on account sl the plaintiffs fright or nervous ap- 1T rehension. It is proper to consider the IT eril and danger to which the person of p he plaintiff was exposed by the acci- p ent producing the injury The dismay = nd the consequent shock to the feel lgs, :" it was observed in a Connecticut