by permission of Graves and without | iron, which fell just at Jeffries' feet, rent. Graves sold to Drexel, and not striking him, but frightening him Drexel desiring to build an apartment extremely. Jeffries ran into the buildhouse on that lot notified Scripps to ing by a passage way and made his leave on March 1. Scripps not leav- way to the room whence the keg had ing, Drexel came with assistance on been thrown. Finding Wilkins there, March 6, entered the house, ejected he proceeded to blame him for the act, Scripps and placed all his goods out and threatened to arrest him; whereon the sidewalk. Has Scripps any upon Wilkins left the room, and locked action against Drexel? the door behind him. Jeffries, after vainly trying the door, escaped by sliding down a hoist-rope which hung outside the window. He tore his clothes and bruised his hands. He would now like to know whether he has a cause of action for anything against Wilkins, assuming that he cannot prove that Wilkins knew that anybody was passing by when he threw the keg out of the window. 176. The plaintiff Nelson was riding in a trolley car of the Suburban Railway, the car going west at a high rate of speed and approaching a railroad crossing of the County Railroad. Owing to the negligence of the motorman the car was not stopped until just on the east track. An express train was approaching but on which track could not be seen, and the passengers rushed to escape. Nelson, being among the last, was unable to get out; but the express train, being on the west track, passed by without striking the car. The railroad gatekeeper was in fault in not putting the gates down. Nelson received a severe nervous shock, and was under medical treatment for several months. Has he an action against either the County Railroad Company or the Suburban Railway Company? 177. Carroll, a peddler, entered the house of Marcoux, peacefully but without express permission. Marcoux's dog, known to him to be vicious, attacked and bit Carroll; and when Carroll kicked the dog, Marcoux knocked Carroll down. Has Carroll an action? 178. Munroe's wagon was left by him standing unhitched on the streetcar track, contrary to the city ordinance. The street-railway company's car, running at a speed in excess of the limit fixed by another city ordinance, collided with the wagon and injured it. Has Munroe an action? 179. On January 5, 1906, one Jeffries was walking through an alley from La Salle Street to Fifth Avenue, when the defendant Wilkins threw out of a second-story window a keg full of old 180. It appears that the keg of old iron, in the foregoing case, had been sold on January 2, 1906, by Wilkins, to one Misselhammer, a junk-dealer, who had promised to come and take it away the next day, but had failed to do so, and Wilkins had pitched it into the alley to get it out of the way. On January 7, Misselhammer called to take the keg of iron; Wilkins told him that he was too late, that the keg had been thrown away and that he would do nothing more about it. Misselhammer searched in the alley, but the keg was gone, Jeffries having come back and taken it, on his attorney's advice, to use as evidence in his lawsuit against Wilkins. Has Misselhammer an action of any sort against anybody? 181. The plaintiff Edwards was crossing the street, and the defendant Shaw was driving a wagon rapidly by. A snow-storm was raging. Shaw's wagon collided with Edwards, injuring him slightly and knocking off his hat, which was blown away by the wind. Edwards happened not to have money enough about him to buy another hat, and caught a severe cold while proceeding home in the storm. A severe pneumonia with two months' incapacity for work, ensued. What instructions of law would you, on behalf of the defendant, ask the judge to give the jury, covering the various points exaggerated rumor of the affair, and of liability? 182. In Georgetown, Robinson owned a building, No. 12 York St. The next building No. 14 was owned by Washburn. On Feb. 1 a fire broke out in No. 14. The Georgetown fire-engine came; a hose was laid from the corner to the fire, and the water was started. Just then Egan drove his heavy beerwagon over the hose, in spite of warning from the bystanders; the hose was severed; and before it could be repaired and the stream put on the fire again, the fire had spread to Robinson's house, where it did much damage. Has any one an action for anything against Egan? 183. Jones was passing by a bakeryrestaurant, when a projecting electric sign of the bakery, blown down by a high wind, fell on him and injured him. The baker was tenant of the ground floor. Rastall was owner of the building. The sign was defectively fastened, and the license required by city ordinance had not been obtained. Has Jones an action against either the baker or Rastall? 184. During a three days' riot against the negro population in Metropolisville, the mob set fire to buildings; the city authorities were culpable in not calling for the State military to suppress the riot. The fire spread, and the city authorities were obliged to blow up a warehouse of Williams to stop the fire. Has Williams an action against the city? 185. Walton was standing on the platform of the Hawkeye R. Co.'s station, and Jewett, the station agent, arrested him as being the person who had robbed a passenger the day before. Walton was in fact not the robber. Jewett locked Walton in the trunk room, and went to find a police officer. Walton broke a window and got out. Has Walton an action against Jewett? Has the Railroad Co. an action against Walton? 186. While Walton was in the trunk room, Halpin a local reporter heard an telephoned to Walton's house. Walton's wife answered the telephone call, and Halpin said: "I have just heard that Walton has been taken by a mob and they are going to hang him for horse-stealing. Have you anything to say for publication as to your views on the subject?" Walton's wife fainted on hearing this, and the shock caused an illness of several months. Has Walton or his wife any action for anything against Halpin? 187. When Walton was arrested, his trunk was lying on the platform, but not checked. While he was in the trunk room, the train for Chicago arrived, the baggage-man called for baggage; Jenks, an expressman, thinkwas checked, ing that the trunk Walton's pointed out trunk and helped the baggage-man to load it into the car; the station agent being away. The trunk was taken to-ChiWalton went there to demand cago. it, but was informed by the Chicago baggage agent that he could not have Assumit until he proved ownership. ing the Railroad Co. to be liable for the wrongful acts of its agents, has Walton an action against either Jenks or the Railroad Co.? 188. Fraley went to Jenkins, the employer of Henshaw, and told him that Henshaw was the person who had committed a brutal assault on the Secretary of the Brass Manufacturers' Association. This was not true. Jenkins, believing it, immediately discharged Henshaw, who was under a contract of hiring for six months not yet expired. In an action by Henshaw against Fraley, would this damage be recoverable? 189. Muzzey's horse was pastured on his farm-lot, adjoining the golf-links of the Foozle Club. The horse had been pasturing for some weeks and was frisky. Muzzey went out one day to get the horse for driving; but the horse resented interference with his liberty, and ran off the farm-lot into the links, where he careered about for an hour or two, and tore up the fine plank of the bridge giving way as turf near the holes, causing damage Muzzey ran over it. Muzzey's clothes irreparable before the end of the season. were ruined by the slime of the pool. Muzzey, in following the horse to re- Muzzey and the Foozle Club now sue capture him, fell into a pool of water, each other. Should either recover? used as a hazard of the links, a rotten APPENDIX D ADDITIONAL CITATIONS OF ESSAYS, NOTES, AND ILLUSTRATIVE CASES, FOR TOPICS IN VOLUME ONE1 BOOK I: THE DAMAGE ELEMENT No. 32, Page 50. TITLE A. PERSONAL HARMS SUB-TITLE (I): CORPORAL HARMS Topic 2. Physical Pain and Incapacity The plaintiff was badly injured in a mine-blast. The trial judge instructed that the jury might consider, as elements of damage, "his condition in life, the physical pain and mental anguish, if any, which he has suffered, the question whether his injuries are temporary or permanent, . . . whether his earning capacity has been reduced," etc. Was there here any error? (1910, Vandalia Coal Co. v. Yemm, Oh., 92 N. E. 49.) NOTES: - Pain and Suffering." (A. L. Reg., L, 571.) Topic 3. Illness caused without Bodily Impact The plaintiff was in an electric car, an explosion took place, her clothes caught fire, and she jumped aside. "I must have wrenched my side or got a shock of some kind." Another passenger smothered the fire in her clothing. Then "I sat down again to rest; I was in a terribly nervous condition, and I felt all of a tremble, and I had this terrible pain all through me." Has she an action for the nervous shock and pain? (1910, Steverman v. Boston El. R. Co., Mass. 91 N. E. 918). The plaintiff was in her house, walking about at her work, when a large stone, thrown by a blast negligently set off by the defendant some 600 feet away, crashed into the house and smashed the premises and goods. The plaintiff fell down in a faint, but was not hit by the rock nor otherwise bruised. The shock made her ill. Has she an action? (1910, Driscoll v. Gaffey, Mass.92 N. E. 1010). ESSAYS: Francis H. Bohlen, "Right to recover for Injury resulting from Negligence without Impact." (American Law Reg. 1902, 41 N. S.; 50 O. S., 141.) 1 [These citations are intended to bring down to the date of Vol. II (June, 1911) the list of useful Essays and Notes by adding those which have appeared since Volume I was printed (August, 1910).] NOTES: "Injuries resulting from Fright occasioned by Invasion of the Privacy of a Dwelling." (A. L. Reg., LIX, 99.) "Damages - Mental Shock induced by Physical Injury." (A. L. Reg., LIX, 348.) "Fright without Physical Impact but resulting in Physical Injury." (M. L. R., VIII, 44.) No. 44, Page 96. NOTES: "Damages SUB-TITLE (III): MENTAL HARMS Elements of Mental Suffering incident to Personal Injuries." (A. L. Reg., LIX, 347.) "Mental Suffering." (C. L. R., X, 679.) "Damages for Mental Suffering in Action for Conversion." (H. L.R., XXII, 609.) "Liability for Mental Suffering from Injury to Dead Body." (Y. L. J., XX, 663.) SUB-TITLE (IV): LOSS OF LIBERTY No. 60, Page 114. CHAPTERS ON THE JURAL NATURE AND ETHICAL BASIS OF THIS Right: T. Rutherforth, "Institutes of Natural Law," b. I, c. X, pp. 73–78. CHAPTERS ON THE JURAL NATURE AND ETHICAL BASIS OF THIS RIGHT: L. Miraglia, “Comparative Legal Philosophy,” b. I, c. XX. T. Rutherforth, "Institutes of Natural Law," b. I, c. XI, pp. 80-84 ("Of Parental Authority"). Topics 3, 4. Marital Relation; Loss of Service No. 85, Page 154. NOTES: "Loss of Consortium caused by Negligence." (C. L. R., X, 678.) "Alienation of Husband's Affections." (C. L. R., X, 775.) "Plaintiff's Divorce as a Statutory Defence to an Action for Alienation of Affections." (H. C. L. R., XI, 367.) "Husband's Right impaired by purely Physical Injury to Wife." (M. L. R., IX, 524.) "Insane Person-Guardian's Right to sue for False Imprisonment." (H. L. R., XXIV, 502.) "Loss of Consortium caused by Defendant's Negligence." (Y. L. J., XIX, 651.) "Alienation of Affection - Effect of Divorce." (Y. L. J., XX, 591.) CHAPTERS ON THE JURAL NATURE AND ETHICAL BASIS OF THIS RIGHT: |