Transcriber’s Note:

The cover image was created by the transcriber and is placed in the public domain.

A SELECTION OF CASES
ON
THE LAW OF TORTS

BY

JAMES BARR AMES and JEREMIAH SMITH

NEW EDITION BY

ROSCOE POUND

CARTER PROFESSOR OF JURISPRUDENCE IN HARVARD UNIVERSITY

CAMBRIDGE

HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS

1919

This edition was first published in four parts. Part I (pp. 1–167) appeared September 25, 1916; part II (pp. 168–368), December 1, 1916; part III (pp. 369–618), February 20, 1917, and part IV (pp. 619–1008), April 23, 1917.

Copyright, 1893 and 1909, by James Barr Ames.

Copyright, 1893 and 1909, by Jeremiah Smith.

Copyright, 1910, by Richard Ames.

Copyright, 1916 and 1917, by Roscoe Pound.

PREFACE

The chief occasion for this edition is the change in the first-year curriculum in Harvard Law School, which assigned to other courses many things formerly appropriated to the course in the Law of Torts and hence treated in former editions. Thus causation is now treated in a course on the Principles of Legal Liability; certain excuses, such as consent and self-defence, are dealt with in that course, and trespass to land and conversion, which analytically might well be treated in the first chapter of this book, have been thought more appropriate to the course on the Law of Property. But the student should be warned that such matters of arrangement do not inhere in the law. They are mere matters of pedagogical expediency. He should bear in mind that the law is a unit and should be on his guard against thinking of it as made up of separate water-tight compartments. General principles which are of prime importance in connection with the subjects treated in this book are dealt with primarily in the courses on Property and on Criminal Law. Not the least important task for the student is to seek constantly for these relations between the subjects studied.

Again, the student should be warned that the arrangement proceeds upon pedagogical considerations and does not seek to set forth an analytical system. System is to be derived from study of the cases. The effort of the student to make one in connection with his summaries for review and his reading of the systematic discussions referred to in the notes will do more for him than learning in advance a system laid out by some one else. Similar reasons have led to omission of subheadings as far as consistent with convenience, leaving it to the student to systematize the main headings for himself. For other purposes an index is offered instead.

In arrangement of the cases advantage has been taken of the experience of the late Dean Thayer, who had given the matter anxious consideration for some years. Indeed the instinct of Dean Ames for teachable cases, the sagacity of Judge Smith in finding significant cases, and the judgment of Dean Thayer in matters of arrangement left little of moment for the present editor to do.

ROSCOE POUND

Cambridge, July 18, 1917

Note. The present volume is a reprint of the edition of 1916–17 which was not stereotyped and was soon exhausted. A few recent decisions have been added in the notes. Otherwise there is no change.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CASES

CASES ON TORTS

PART I
INTERFERENCE WITH THE PERSON OR TANGIBLE PROPERTY

CHAPTER I
INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE

Section I
Assault and Battery

I. De S. and Wife v. W. De S.
At the Assizes, coram Thorpe, C. J., 1348 or 1349.
Reported in Year Book, Liber Assisarum, folio 99, placitum 60.

I. De S. & M. uxor ejus querunt de W. De S. de eo quod idem W. anno, &c., vi et armis, &c., apud S., in ipsam M. insultum fecit, et ipsam verberavit, &c. And W. pleaded not guilty. And it was found by verdict of the inquest that the said W. came in the night to the house of the said I., and would have bought some wine, but the door of the tavern was closed; and he struck on the door with a hatchet, which he had in his hand, and the woman plaintiff put her head out at a window and ordered him to stop; and he perceived her and struck with the hatchet, but did not touch the woman. Whereupon the inquest said that it seemed to them that there was no trespass, since there was no harm done. Thorpe C. J. There is harm, and a trespass for which they shall recover damages, since he made an assault upon the woman, as it is found, although he did no other harm. Wherefore tax his damages, &c. And they taxed the damages at half a mark. Thorpe, C. J., awarded that they should recover their damages, &c., and that the other should be taken. Et sic nota, that for an assault one shall recover damages, &c.[^[1]]

TUBERVILLE v. SAVAGE
In the King’s Bench, Trinity Term, 1669.
Reported in 1 Modern Reports, 3.

Action of assault, battery, and wounding.[^[2]] The evidence to prove a provocation was, that the plaintiff put his hand upon his sword and said, “If it were not assize-time, I would not take such language from you.” The question was, if that were an assault? The court agreed that it was not; for the declaration of the plaintiff was that he would not assault him, the judges being in town; and the intention as well as the act makes an assault.[^[3]] Therefore, if one strike another upon the hand or arm or breast, in discourse, it is no assault, there being no intention to assault; but if one, intending to assault, strike at another and miss him, this is an assault: so if he hold up his hand against another in a threatening manner and say nothing, it is an assault. In the principal case the plaintiff had judgment.

STEPHENS v. MYERS
At Nisi Prius, coram Tindal, C. J., July 17, 1830.
Reported in 4 Carrington & Payne, 349.

Assault. The declaration stated that the defendant threatened and attempted to assault the plaintiff. Plea: Not guilty.

It appeared that the plaintiff was acting as chairman at a parish meeting, and sat at the head of a table, at which table the defendant also sat, there being about six or seven persons between him and the plaintiff. The defendant having, in the course of some angry discussion which took place, been very vociferous, and interrupted the proceedings of the meeting, a motion was made that he should be turned out, which was carried by a very large majority. Upon this the defendant said he would rather pull the chairman out of the chair than be turned out of the room, and immediately advanced with his fist clenched toward the chairman, but was stopped by the churchwarden, who sat next but one to the chairman, at a time when he was not near enough for any blow he might have meditated to have reached the chairman, but the witnesses said that it seemed to them that he was advancing with an intention to strike the chairman.

Spankie, Serjt., for the defendant, upon this evidence, contended that no assault had been committed, as there was no power in the defendant, from the situation of the parties, to execute his threat,—there was not a present ability,—he had not the means of executing his intention at the time he was stopped.

Tindal, C. J., in his summing up, said: It is not every threat, when there is no actual personal violence, that constitutes an assault; there must, in all cases, be the means of carrying the threat into effect. The question I shall leave to you will be, whether the defendant was advancing at the time, in a threatening attitude, to strike the chairman, so that his blow would almost immediately have reached the chairman if he had not been stopped; then, though he was not near enough at the time to have struck him, yet, if he was advancing with that intent, I think it amounts to an assault in law. If he was so advancing that, within a second or two of time, he would have reached the plaintiff, it seems to me it is an assault in law. If you think he was not advancing to strike the plaintiff, then only can you find your verdict for the defendant; otherwise you must find it for the plaintiff, and give him such damages as you think the nature of the case requires.

Verdict for the plaintiff. Damages, 1s.[^[4]]

READ v. COKER
In the Common Pleas, June 1, 1853.
Reported in 13 Common Bench Reports, 850.

Assault and false imprisonment.[^[5]] The first count charged an assault committed by the defendant on the plaintiff on the 24th of March, 1853, by thrusting him out of a certain workshop.

Plea: Not guilty “by statute,” upon which issue was joined.

The cause was tried before Talfourd, J., at the first sitting in London in Easter term last. The facts which appeared in evidence were as follows: The plaintiff was a paper-stainer, carrying on business in the City Road, upon premises which he rented of one Molineux, at a rent of 8s. per week. In January, 1852, the rent being sixteen weeks in arrear, the landlord employed one Holliwell to distrain for it. Holliwell accordingly seized certain presses, lathes, and other trade fixtures, and, at the plaintiff’s request, advanced him £16 upon the security of the goods, for the purpose of paying off the rent. The plaintiff, being unable to redeem his goods, on the 23d of February applied to the defendant for assistance. The goods were thereupon sold to the defendant by Holliwell, on the part of Read, for £25 11s. 6d.; and it was agreed between the plaintiff and the defendant that the business should be carried on for their mutual benefit, the defendant paying the rent of the premises and other outgoings, and allowing the plaintiff a certain sum weekly.

The defendant, becoming dissatisfied with the speculation, dismissed the plaintiff on the 22d of March. On the 24th, the plaintiff came to the premises, and, refusing to leave when ordered by the defendant, the latter collected together some of his workmen, who mustered round the plaintiff, tucking up their sleeves and aprons, and threatened to break his neck if he did not go out; and, fearing that the men would strike him if he did not do so, the plaintiff went out. This was the assault complained of in the first count. Upon this evidence the learned judge left it to the jury to say whether there was an intention on the part of the defendant to assault the plaintiff, and whether the plaintiff was apprehensive of personal violence if he did not retire. The jury found for the plaintiff on this count. Damages, one farthing.

Byles, Serjt., on a former day in this term, moved for a rule nisi for a new trial, on the ground of misdirection, and that the verdict was not warranted by the evidence. That which was proved as to the first count clearly did not amount to an assault. [Jervis, C. J. It was as much an assault as a sheriff’s officer being in a room with a man against whom he has a writ, and saying to him, “You are my prisoner,” is an arrest.] To constitute an assault, there must be something more than a threat of violence. An assault is thus defined in Buller’s Nisi Prius, p. 15: “An assault is an attempt or offer, by force or violence, to do a corporal hurt to another, as by pointing a pitchfork at him, when standing within reach; presenting a gun at him [within shooting distance]; drawing a sword, and waving it in a menacing manner, &c. The Queen v. Ingram, 1 Salk. 384. But no words can amount to an assault, though perhaps they may in some cases serve to explain a doubtful action: 1 Hawk. P. C. 133; as if a man were to lay his hand upon his sword, and say, ‘If it were not assize-time, he would not take such language,’—the words would prevent the action from being construed to be an assault, because they show he had no intent to do him any corporal hurt at that time: Tuberville v. Savage.” So, in Selwyn’s Nisi Prius (11th ed.), 26, it is said: “An assault is an attempt, with force or violence, to do a corporal injury to another, as by holding up a fist in a menacing manner; striking at another with a cane or stick, though the party striking may miss his aim; drawing a sword or bayonet; throwing a bottle or glass with intent to wound or strike; presenting a gun at a person who is within the distance to which the gun will carry; pointing a pitchfork at a person who is within reach (Genner v. Sparks); or by any other similar act, accompanied with such circumstances as denote at the time an intention, coupled with a present ability (see Stephens v. Myers), of using actual violence against the person of another.” So, in 3 Bl. Comm. 120, an assault is said to be “an attempt or offer to beat another, without touching him; as if one lifts up his cane or his fist in a threatening manner at another, or strikes at him but misses him: this is an assault, insultus, which Finch (L. 202) describes to be ‘an unlawful setting upon one’s person.’” [Jervis, C. J. If a man comes into a room, and lays his cane on the table, and says to another, “If you don’t go out I will knock you on the head,” would not that be an assault?] Clearly not: it is a mere threat, unaccompanied by any gesture or action towards carrying it into effect. The direction of the learned judge as to this point was erroneous. He should have told the jury that to constitute an assault there must be an attempt, coupled with a present ability, to do personal violence to the party; instead of leaving it to them, as he did, to say what the plaintiff thought, and not what they (the jury) thought was the defendant’s intention. There must be some act done denoting a present ability and an intention to assault.

A rule nisi having been granted,

Allen, Serjt., and Charnock now showed cause. The first question is, whether the evidence was sufficient, as to the first count, to justify the learned judge in putting it to the jury whether or not the defendant had been guilty of an assault. The evidence was, that the plaintiff was surrounded by the defendant and his men, who, with their sleeves and aprons tucked up, threatened to break his neck if he did not quit the workshop. [Maule, J. If there can be such a thing as an assault without an actual beating, this is an assault.]

Jervis, C. J. I am of opinion that this rule cannot be made absolute to its full extent; but that, so far as regards the first count of the declaration, it must be discharged. If anything short of actual striking will in law constitute an assault, the facts here clearly showed that the defendant was guilty of an assault. There was a threat of violence exhibiting an intention to assault, and a present ability to carry the threat into execution.

Maule, J., Cresswell, J., and Talfourd, J., concurring.

Rule discharged as to the first count.[^[6]]

UNITED STATES v. RICHARDSON
In the United States Circuit Court, District of Columbia, November Term, 1837.
Reported in 5 Cranch, Circuit Court Reports, 348.

Indictment for an assault upon one Susan Shelton.

The evidence was that the defendant came into the house where Mrs. Shelton was sitting at a window. He was armed with a musket and a club; and raising the club over her head, in an attitude for striking, and within striking distance, said to her that if she said a word (or if she opened her mouth) he would strike her; and this without any provocation on her part.

Mr. Bradley and Mr. Hoban, for the defendant, contended that this was not, in law, an assault; that there can be no assault without a present intent to strike; and his saying, “if she opened her mouth,” showed that he had not such a present intent; and they cited the old case, “if it were not the assizes, I would stab you.”

But the Court (Thurston, J., absent) said that he had no right to restrain her from speaking; and his language showed an intent to strike upon her violation of a condition which he had no right to impose. Suppose a stranger comes to my house armed, and raises his club over my head, within striking distance, and threatens to beat me unless I will go out of and abandon my house; surely that would be an assault. So, if a highwayman puts a pistol to my breast, and threatens to shoot me unless I give him my money; this would be evidence of an assault, and would be charged as such in the indictment.

Verdict, guilty; fined ten dollars.[^[7]]

OSBORN v. VEITCH
At Nisi Prius, coram Willes, J., Kent Summer Assizes, 1858.
Reported in 1 Foster & Finlason, 317.

Trespass and assault. Pleas: Not guilty, and son assault demesne. Issue.

The plaintiffs were owners of a field in which the defendants were walking with loaded guns at half-cock in their hands. The plaintiffs desired them to withdraw and give their names, and on their refusal advanced towards them, apparently as if to apprehend them. The defendants half raised their guns, which they pointed towards them, and threatened to shoot them. The plaintiffs (one of whom was a constable) then gave them in charge to a policeman for shooting with intent, and he, with their assistance, seized and handcuffed them.

E. James submitted that there was no assault; as the guns were only at half-cock, there was no “present ability” to execute the threat. Read v. Coker.

Sed per Willes, J. Pointing a loaded gun at a person is in law an assault. It is immaterial that it is at half-cock; cocking it is an instantaneous act, and there is a “present ability” of doing the act threatened, for it can be done in an instant.[^[8]]

E. James. The assault was in self-defence; the defendants were only trespassers, and there was an attempt to apprehend them, and excess is not even assigned. Broughton v. Jackson, 18 Q. B. 378.

Willes, J. It was not necessary that it should be. To shoot a man is not a lawful way of repelling an assault. No doubt the charge of shooting with intent was idle, and the assault was only a misdemeanor. The handcuffing was utterly unlawful.

Verdict for the plaintiff. Damages, one farthing.

BEACH v. HANCOCK
Superior Court of Judicature, New Hampshire, December Term, 1853.
Reported in 27 New Hampshire Reports, 223.

Trespass, for an assault.

Upon the general issue it appeared that, the plaintiff and defendant being engaged in an angry altercation, the defendant stepped into his office, which was at hand, and brought out a gun, which he aimed at the plaintiff in an excited and threatening manner, the plaintiff being three or four rods distant. The evidence tended to show that the defendant snapped the gun twice at the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff did not know whether the gun was loaded or not, and that, in fact, the gun was not loaded.

The court ruled that the pointing of a gun, in an angry and threatening manner, at a person three or four rods distant, who was ignorant whether the gun was loaded or not, was an assault, though it should appear that the gun was not loaded, and that it made no difference whether the gun was snapped or not.

The court, among other things, instructed the jury that, in assessing the damages, it was their right and duty to consider the effect which the finding of light or trivial damages in actions for breaches of the peace would have to encourage a disregard of the laws and disturbances of the public peace.

The defendant excepted to these rulings and instructions.

The jury having found a verdict for the plaintiff, the defendant moved for a new trial by reason of said exceptions.

Morrison and Fitch, for the defendant. The first question arising in this case is, Is it an assault to point an unloaded gun at a person in a threatening manner? An assault is defined to be an inchoate violence to the person of another, with the present means of carrying the intent into effect. 2 Greenl. Ev. 72. The attempt or offer with violence to do corporal hurt to another must be coupled with a present ability to constitute an assault. Roscoe’s Crim. Ev. 287; 1 Russell on Crimes, 750. It is no assault to point an unloaded gun or pistol at another, &c. Blake v. Barnard, 9 Car. & P. 626; Regina v. Baker, 1 Car. & K. 254; Regina v. James, 1 Car. & K. 530. The court erred in instructing the jury that the pointing of a gun in an angry and threatening manner was an assault. It is well settled that the intention to do harm is the essence of an assault, and this intent is to be collected by the jury from the circumstances of the case. 2 Greenl. Ev. 73.[^[9]]

Gilchrist, C. J. Several cases have been cited by the counsel of the defendant to show that the ruling of the court was incorrect. Among them is the case of Regina v. Baker, 1 Car. & K. 254. In that case, the prisoner was indicted under the statute of 7 Will. IV. and 1 Vict. c. 85, for attempting to discharge a loaded pistol. Rolfe, B., told the jury that they must consider whether the pistol was in such a state of loading that, under ordinary circumstances, it would have gone off, and that the statute under which the prisoner was indicted would then apply. He says, also, “If presenting a pistol at a person, and pulling the trigger of it, be an assault at all, certainly, in the case where the pistol was loaded, it must be taken to be an attempt to discharge the pistol with intent to do some bodily injury.”

From the manner in which this statement is made, the opinion of the court must be inferred to be, that presenting a loaded pistol is an assault. There is nothing in the case favorable to the defendant. The statute referred to relates to loaded arms.

The case of Regina v. James, 1 Car. & K. 530, was an indictment for attempting to discharge a loaded rifle. It was shown that the priming was so damp that it would not go off. Tindal, C. J., said: “I am of opinion that this was not a loaded arm within the statute of 1 Vict. c. 85, and that the prisoner can neither be convicted of the felony nor of the assault. It is only an assault to point a loaded pistol at any one, and this rifle is proved not to be so loaded as to be able to be discharged.” The reason why the prisoner could not be convicted of the assault is given in the case of Regina v. St. George, 9 Car. & P. 483, where it was held that on an indictment for a felony, which includes an assault, the prisoner ought not to be convicted of an assault, which is quite distinct from the felony charged, and on such an indictment the prisoner ought only to be convicted of an assault, which is involved in the felony itself. In this case, Parke, B., said: “If a person presents a pistol which has the appearance of being loaded, and puts the party into fear and alarm, that is what it is the object of the law to prevent.” So if a person present a pistol purporting to be a loaded pistol at another, and so near as to have been dangerous to life if the pistol had gone off; semble, that this is an assault, even though the pistol were, in fact, not loaded. Ibid.

In the case of Blake v. Barnard, 9 Car. & P. 626, which was trespass for an assault and false imprisonment, the declaration alleged that the pistol was loaded with gunpowder, ball, and shot, and it was held that it was incumbent on the plaintiff to make that out. Lord Abinger then says, “If the pistol was not loaded, it would be no assault,” and the prisoner would be entitled to an acquittal, which was undoubtedly correct, under that declaration, for the variance. Regina v. Oxford, 9 Car. & P. 525.

One of the most important objects to be attained by the enactment of laws and the institutions of civilized society is, each of us shall feel secure against unlawful assaults. Without such security society loses most of its value. Peace and order and domestic happiness, inexpressibly more precious than mere forms of government, cannot be enjoyed without the sense of perfect security. We have a right to live in society without being put in fear of personal harm. But it must be a reasonable fear of which we complain. And it surely is not unreasonable for a person to entertain a fear of personal injury, when a pistol is pointed at him in a threatening manner, when, for aught he knows, it may be loaded, and may occasion his immediate death. The business of the world could not be carried on with comfort, if such things could be done with impunity.

We think the defendant guilty of an assault, and we perceive no reason for taking any exception to the remarks of the court. Finding trivial damages for breaches of the peace—damages incommensurate with the injury sustained—would certainly lead the ill-disposed to consider an assault as a thing that might be committed with impunity. But at all events, it was proper for the jury to consider whether such a result would or would not be produced. Flanders v. Colby, 28 N. H. 34.

Judgment on the verdict.[^[10]]

STEARNS and Wife v. SAMPSON
Supreme Judicial Court, Maine, 1871.
Reported in 59 Maine Reports, 568.

On exceptions, and motion to set aside the verdict as being against law.

Trespass. The writ contained three counts: one for breaking and entering the plaintiffs’ close and carrying away the household furniture; the second, for taking and carrying away the household furniture of the wife; and the third,[^[11]] for assault on the wife.

There was evidence tending to show that after entry and notice to leave, and refusal by the wife and her mother, with an expressed determination on their part to hold possession against the defendant, the latter called in assistants and ordered them to remove the furniture, and they did remove it from some of the rooms; that upon going to one of the rooms, the door was fastened, and the assistants opened it; that the furniture, except bed, was removed from Mrs. Stearns’ sleeping-room.

That the assistants remained there several days and nights.

That the defendant caused the windows to be removed; prevented food from being carried to the house; that a tenant was let into the L of the house, and had charge of the defendant’s bloodhound, five months old, and permitted him to go into the house; that the furniture was removed into a house near by, and Mrs. Stearns notified of its whereabouts; that the doors fastened by Mrs. Stearns were removed; that Mrs. Stearns finally left by compulsion with an officer, and was sick several weeks.

The rulings sufficiently appear in the opinion.

The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs, and the defendant alleged exceptions, and also filed motions to set aside the verdict as being against law and the weight of evidence.

Appleton, C. J. There is in the declaration a count for an assault and battery upon the female plaintiff. In reference to this branch of the case, the following instructions were given: “Was there a trespass committed upon the female plaintiff? She is the only one who seeks for damages. Whatever may have been the injury inflicted upon the other inmates of that house, she can recover on this suit only for that which was inflicted upon her. In order to constitute an assault, it is not necessary that the person should be touched, but there should be certain indignities. In the language of one of the decisions, if the plaintiff was embarrassed and distressed by the acts of the defendant, it would amount in law to an assault.” The acts and indignities which from the charge might constitute an assault were the bursting open a door, which the defendants had no right to fasten, and the inconveniences resulting from taking off the doors and taking out the windows, which made it uncomfortable for the female plaintiff to remain, where remaining, she was a trespasser. So the bringing a bloodhound by the defendant into his house, which is proved to have barked, but not to have bitten, and the making a noise therein, with other similar acts, it was contended, would amount to an assault and trespass, and of that the jury were to judge. Now, such is not the law. An assault and battery is clearly defined by R. S., c. 118, § 28, thus: “Whoever unlawfully attempts to strike, hit, touch, or do any violence to another, however small, in a wanton, wilful, angry, or insulting manner, having an intention and existing ability to do some violence to such person, shall be deemed guilty of an assault; and if such attempt is carried into effect, he shall be deemed guilty of an assault and battery.” Now, the removal of a door or windows, of the owner in possession, would constitute no assault. Indeed, as has been seen, 6 Allen, 76, the owner would, in attempting it, have the right to use as much force as was necessary to overcome the resistance of the unlawfully resisting and trespassing tenant. Acts which may embarrass and distress do not necessarily amount to an assault. Indignities may not constitute an assault. Acts aggravating an assault differ materially from the assault thereby aggravated. Insulting language or conduct may aggravate an assault, but it, not an assault.[^[12]] So the acts of the defendant in taking out the windows of his own house, in a bleak and cold day, might distress one unlawfully occupying and illegally refusing to quit his premises, but they could in no sense be regarded as an assault upon her. One may be embarrassed and distressed by acts done “in a wanton, wilful, angry, or insulting manner,” where there is no “intention nor existing ability to do some violence” to the person, and yet there be no assault. The instruction on this point is equally at variance with the common law and the statute of the State.[^[13]]

COLE v. TURNER
At Nisi Prius, coram Holt, C. J., Easter Term, 1704.
Reported in 6 Modern Reports, 149.

Holt, C. J., upon evidence in trespass for assault and battery declared,—

First, That the least touching of another in anger[^[14]] is a battery.

Secondly, If two or more meet in a narrow passage, and, without any violence or design of harm, the one touches the other gently, it will be no battery.[^[15]]

Thirdly, If any of them use violence against the other, to force his way in a rude, inordinate manner, it will be a battery; or any struggle about the passage to that degree as may do hurt will be a battery.

INNES v. WYLIE
At Nisi Prius, coram Lord Denman, C. J., February 22, 1844.
Reported in 1 Carrington & Kirwan, 257.

Assault. Plea:[^[16]] Not guilty.

It further appeared that the plaintiff, on the 30th of November, 1843, went to a dinner of the society at Radley’s Hotel, and was prevented by a policeman named Douglas from entering the room; and it was proved by the policeman that he acted by order of the defendants.

With respect to the alleged assault, the policeman said, “The plaintiff tried to push by me into the room, and I prevented him;” but some of the other witnesses stated that the plaintiff tried to enter the room, and was pushed back.

Erle addressed the jury for the defendant. There is no assault here. The policeman, who must best know what was done, says that the plaintiff tried to push into the room, and he prevented him; and preventing a person from pushing into a room is no assault, the assault, if any, being rather on the other side.

Lord Denman, C. J. (in summing up). You will say, whether, on the evidence, you think that the policeman committed an assault on the plaintiff, or was merely passive. If the policeman was entirely passive, like a door or a wall put to prevent the plaintiff from entering the room, and simply obstructing the entrance of the plaintiff, no assault has been committed on the plaintiff, and your verdict will be for the defendant. The question is, Did the policeman take any active measures to prevent the plaintiff from entering the room, or did he stand in the doorway passive, and not move at all?

Verdict for the plaintiff. Damages, 40s.

COWARD v. BADDELEY
In the Exchequer, April 19, 1859.
Reported in 4 Hurlstone & Norman, 478.

Declaration: That the defendant assaulted and beat the plaintiff, gave him in custody to a policeman, and caused him to be imprisoned in a police-station for twenty-four hours, and afterwards to be taken in custody along public streets before metropolitan police magistrates.

Pleas: First, Not guilty; third, That the plaintiff, within the Metropolitan Police District, assaulted the defendant, and therefore the defendant gave the plaintiff into custody to a police officer, who had view of the assault, in order that he might be taken before magistrates and dealt with according to law, &c.

Whereupon issue was joined.

At the trial before Bramwell, B., at the London sittings in last Hilary term, the plaintiff proved that, on the night of the 31st of October, he was passing through High Street, Islington, and stopped to look at a house which was on fire. The defendant was directing a stream of water from the hose of an engine on the fire. The plaintiff said, “Don’t you see you are spreading the flames? Why don’t you pump on the next house?” He went away, and then came back and repeated these words several times, but did not touch the defendant. The defendant charged the plaintiff with assaulting him, and gave him into the custody of a policeman who was standing near.

The defendant swore that, on being interrupted by the plaintiff, he told him to get out of the way and mind his own business; that the plaintiff came up to him again, seized him by the shoulder, violently turned him round, exposed him to danger, and turned the water off the fire.

The learned judge told the jury that the question was whether an assault and battery had been committed; and he asked them, first, whether the plaintiff laid hands on the defendant; and, secondly, whether he did so hostilely. The jury found that the plaintiff did lay hands on the defendant, intending to attract his attention. Whereupon the learned judge ordered the verdict to be entered for the plaintiff, reserving leave to the defendant to move to enter a verdict for him if the court should be of opinion that he had wrongly directed the jury in telling them that, to find the issue on the third plea for the defendant, they must find that the plaintiff laid his hands upon him with a hostile intention.

Shee, Serjt., in the same term, having obtained a rule nisi accordingly.

Beasley now showed cause. The question is, whether the intention of the plaintiff is material to be considered in order to determine whether there was an assault and battery. In Rawlings v. Till, 3 M. & W. 28, Parke, B., referring to Wiffin v. Kincard, 2 B. & P. N. R. 471, where it was held that a touch given by a constable’s staff does not constitute a battery, pointed out, as the ground of that decision, that there the touch was merely to engage the plaintiff’s attention. [Martin, B. Suppose two persons were walking near each other, and one turned round, and in so doing struck the other: surely that would not be a battery. Pollock, C. B. There may be a distinction for civil and criminal purposes. Channell, B. It was necessary to prove an indictable assault and battery in order to sustain the plea.] The maxim, Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea applies. He referred also to Pursell v. Horn, 8 A. & E. 602; Archbold’s Criminal Law, p. 524 (12th ed.); Scott v. Shepherd, 2 W. Bl. 892.

Petersdorff, Serjt., and Francis, in support of the rule. The learned judge’s direction was defective in introducing the word “hostile.” In order to constitute an assault, it is enough if the act be done against the will of the party. There are several cases where it has been held that an assault has been committed where there was no intention to do the act complained of in a hostile way, as in the case of a prizefight. Rex v. Perkins, 4 Car. & P. 537. So a surgeon assisting a female patient to remove a portion of her dress. Rex v. Rosinski 1 Moody C. C. 19. Here the plaintiff interfered with the defendant in the execution of his duty. In Hawkins’ Pleas of the Crown, vol. i. p. 263, it is said, “Any injury whatever, be it never so small, being actually done to the person of a man in an angry, or revengeful, or rude, or insolent manner, as by spitting in his face, or any way touching him in anger, or violently jostling him out of the way, are batteries in the eye of the law.” [Bramwell, B. I think that the jostling spoken of must mean a voluntary jostling.]

Pollock, C. B. I am of opinion that the rule must be discharged. The jury found that what the plaintiff did was done with the intent to attract the attention of the defendant, not with violence to justify giving the plaintiff into custody for an assault. The defendant treated it as a criminal act, and gave the plaintiff into custody. We are called on to set aside a verdict for the plaintiff, on the ground that he touched the defendant.[^[17]] There is no foundation for the application.

Martin, B. I am of the same opinion. The assault and battery which the defendant was bound to establish means such an assault as would justify the putting in force the criminal law for the purpose of bringing the plaintiff to justice. It is necessary to show some act which justified the interference of the police officer. Touching a person so as merely to call his attention, whether the subject of a civil action or not, is not the ground of criminal proceeding. It is clear that it is no battery within the definition given by Hawkins.

Channell, B. I am of the same opinion. Looking at the plea, it is obvious that it was not proved.

Bramwell, B., concurred.

Rule discharged.

DE MARENTILLE v. OLIVER
Supreme Court, New Jersey, February Term, 1808.
Reported in 1 Pennington, 379.

This was action of trespass, brought by the defendant in this court, against the plaintiff in certiorari. The state of demand charged the defendant below, that he unlawfully, forcibly, and with great violence, with a large stick, struck the horse of the plaintiff, on the public highway, which said horse was then before a carriage, in which the plaintiff was riding, on the said public highway, to the damage of the plaintiff fifty dollars. This cause was tried by a jury, and verdict and judgment for the plaintiff, $15 damages. It was assigned for error that the suit was brought before the justice to recover damages for an assault and battery, when, by law, such an action cannot be supported before a justice of the peace.

Pennington, J.[^[18]] To attack and strike with a club, with violence, the horse before a carriage, in which a person is riding, strikes me as an assault on the person;[^[19]] and if so, the justice had no jurisdiction of the action.

But if this is to be considered as a trespass on the property, unconnected with an assault on the person, I think that it was incumbent on the plaintiff below to state an injury done to the horse, whereby the plaintiff suffered damage; that he was in consequence of the blow bruised or wounded, and unable to perform service; or that the plaintiff had been put to expense in curing of him, or the like. All the precedents of declarations for injuries done to domestic animals, as far as my recollection goes, are in that way; and I think, with good reason. Suppose a man, seeing a stranger’s horse in the street, was to strike him with a whip, or a large stick, if you please, and no injury was to ensue, could the owner of the horse maintain an action for this act? I apprehend not. For these reasons, I incline to think, that this judgment ought to be reversed.

Kirkpatrick, C. J. Concurred in the reversal.

Judgment reversed.

OBERLIN v. UPSON
Supreme Court, Ohio, January Term, 1911.
Reported in 84 Ohio State Reports, 111.

Davis, J.[^[20]] Under the common law of England as it has been recognized and administered in this country, a woman cannot maintain against her seducer an action for damages arising from her own seduction. This is frankly admitted by the counsel for the plaintiff in error; but they ask a reversal of the judgment below upon the ground that the plaintiff was induced to consent to the solicitations of the defendant by a betrayal of the love and confidence which had been engendered in her by a period of courtship and by a promise of marriage made by him. Confessedly this is not an action ex contractu upon a promise of marriage, in which the seduction might be pleaded and proved as an aggravation of damages;[^[21]] but it is clearly an attempt to recover ex delicto. There is no averment of mutual promises or of an agreement to marry; and an analysis of the amended petition discloses no more than that the defendant’s promise was one of the blandishments by which he accomplished his purpose. The case, therefore, presents no exception to the common law rule; for there is no claim of fraud, violence or artifice other than mere solicitation.

The theory of the common law is that, since adultery and fornication are crimes,[^[22]] the woman is particeps criminis and hence that she cannot be heard to complain of a wrong which she helped to produce. It may be conceded that some of the arguments adduced here might be fairly persuasive if addressed to the legislature. Indeed in several of the states statutes have been enacted authorizing such an action; but a careful study of the decisions in those states, limiting and construing those statutes, raises a doubt whether the legislation is a real advance upon the common law. 8 Ann. Cas. 1115, note. There is, however, no such statute in this state and the common law rule applies.

The judgment of the circuit court is       Affirmed.[^[23]]

Spear, C. J., Shauck, Price, and Johnson, JJ., concur.

Donahue, J., not participating.

BELL v. HANSLEY
Supreme Court, North Carolina, December Term, 1855.
Reported in 3 Jones, 131.

This was an action of trespass, assault, and battery, tried before Ellis, Judge, at the fall term, 1855, of New Hanover Superior Court.

The plaintiff proved the assault and battery; and there was evidence tending to show a mutual affray and fighting by consent.

But his Honor was of opinion, and so advised the jury, that notwithstanding the fact that the parties had mutually assented to an affray, the plaintiff was, nevertheless, entitled to recover; but that the fact relied on as a defence was proper to be considered by the jury in mitigation of damages. The defendant excepted to these instructions.

Verdict for the plaintiff. Judgment and appeal.

Nash, C. J. This case presents the question whether, when two men fight together, thereby committing an affray, either is guilty of an assault and battery upon the other. Justice Buller, in his Nisi Prius, at page 16, says, each does commit an assault and battery upon the other, and that each can maintain an action for it. He refers to a case at Abingdon, Boulter v. Clark, when Serjeant Hayward appeared for the defendant, and offered to prove that the parties fought by consent and insisted that this, under the maxim volenti non fit injuria, applied. Parker, Chief Baron, denied it, and said, “the fighting being unlawful, the consent of the plaintiff to fight would be no bar to his action, and that he was entitled to a verdict.” Mr. Stephens, in his Nisi Prius, 211, lays down the same doctrine: “If two men engage in a boxing match, an action can be sustained by either of them against the other, if an assault be made; because the act of boxing is unlawful, and the consent of the parties to fight cannot excuse the injury.”

Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed.[^[24]]

Section II
Imprisonment
Note by Thorpe, C. J., 1348.
Reported in Year Book, Liber Assisarum, folio 104, placitum 85.

There is said to be an imprisonment in any case where one is arrested by force and against his will, although it be on the high street or elsewhere, and not in a house, &c.[^[25]]

GENNER v. SPARKES
In the King’s Bench, Trinity Term, 1704.
Reported in 1 Salkeld, 79.

Genner, a bailiff, having a warrant against Sparkes, went to him in his yard, and, being at some distance, told him he had a warrant, and said he arrested him. Sparkes, having a fork in his hand, keeps off the bailiff from touching him, and retreats into his house. And this was moved as a contempt. Et per Curiam. The bailiff cannot have an attachment, for here was no arrest nor rescous. Bare words will not make an arrest; but if the bailiff had touched him, that had been an arrest,[^[26]] and the retreat a rescous, and the bailiff might have pursued and broke open the house, or might have had an attachment or a rescous against him; but as this case is, the bailiff has no remedy, but an action for the assault; for the holding up of the fork at him when he was within reach, is good evidence of that.[^[27]]

WOOD v. LANE
At Nisi Prius, coram Tindal, C. J., December 13, 1834.
Reported in 6 Carrington & Payne, 774.

Trespass and false imprisonment. Pleas: Not guilty; and leave and license.

It was proved by a member of the plaintiff’s family that he was a flannel draper in Castle Street, Holborn, and that on the 3d of April he came home accompanied by the defendants, Cleaton and Lane; and that the plaintiff said Cleaton had arrested him at Mr. Sanders’s, in Holborn; that the plaintiff’s wife asked the defendant Lane, who was, in fact, clerk to Cleaton’s attorney, if he had any authority, and he said he had; and being asked his name, said, “My name is Selby of Chancery Lane.” Lane made several inquiries about the plaintiff’s property, and said he would give him time till eight o’clock in the evening; upon which the other defendant, Cleaton, said, “How can you do that? I will not allow you to give him any time at all.” It was proved that, in fact, Mr. Selby had no bailable process against the plaintiff. A witness was also called, who proved that, in conversation with the defendant Lane on the subject, he said it was a foolish piece of business; that Mr. Cleaton had caused him to do it; that he was very sorry for it, but he thought Mr. Cleaton would indemnify him. There was some uncertainty in the evidence of the conversation whether the defendant Lane admitted or not that he had taken the plaintiff by the arm.

According to the evidence of Mr. Sanders, at whose house the transaction commenced, the plaintiff was bargaining with him for the sale of some goods, and had just made out the invoice, which was lying before him, when the defendant Cleaton came in alone, and asked the plaintiff several times to pay the amount he owed him, or some money on account. The plaintiff said he would not; upon which Cleaton went just outside the door, and returned immediately, followed by the defendant Lane, and pointing to the plaintiff, said, “This is the gentleman.” The plaintiff tore up the invoice he had written, and threw it on the fire, and said, “I suppose I am to go with you.” The answer given was, “Yes.” The plaintiff and the two defendants went away together.

Talfourd, Serjt., for the defendant. No arrest has been proved. Sanders, who was present, says nothing of the laying hold of the plaintiff.

Tindal, C. J. The question is, whether the plaintiff went voluntarily from Mr. Sanders’s to his own house, or whether he went in consequence of the acts of the defendants. If you put your hand upon a man, or tell him he must go with you, and he goes, supposing you to have the power to enforce him, is not that an arrest? May you not arrest without touching a man?

White referred to the case of Arrowsmith v. Le Mesurier, 2 B. & P. N. R. 211.

Tindal, C. J. That is a case which has often been spoken of as going to the very extreme point; but in that case the jury found that the plaintiff went voluntarily with the officer. And in this case, if you can persuade the jury that the plaintiff went voluntarily, you may succeed.

Talfourd, Serjt., then addressed the jury for the defendants. There was no real compulsion. No writ was produced. It was only an endeavor by a manœuvre to make the plaintiff do what he ought, but would not, viz., pay the money which he owed.

Tindal, C. J., in summing up, told the jury, that, if the plaintiff was acting as an unwilling agent, at the time and against his own will when he went to his own house from that of Sanders, it was just as much an arrest as if the defendants had forced him along.

The jury found for the plaintiff. Damages, £10.[^[28]]

PIKE v. HANSON
Superior Court of Judicature, New Hampshire, December Term, 1838.
Reported in 9 New Hampshire Reports, 491.

Trespass, for an assault and false imprisonment on the 1st day of July, A.D. 1837. The action was commenced before a justice of the peace. The defendants pleaded severally the general issue. It appeared in evidence that the defendants were selectmen of the town of Madbury for the year 1836; that they assessed a list of taxes upon the inhabitants of said town, among whom was the plaintiff, and committed it to Nathan Brown, collector of said town, for collection. Brown, after having given due notice to the plaintiff, being in a room with her, called upon her to pay the tax, which she declined doing until arrested. He then told her that he arrested her, but did not lay his hand upon her; and thereupon she paid the tax.

Upon this evidence the defendants objected that the action could not be maintained, because there was no assault.

It did not appear that the defendants had been sworn, as directed by the statute of January 4, 1833. A verdict was taken for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the court.

Wilcox, J.[^[29]] ... But it is contended that in the present case there has been no assault committed, and no false imprisonment. Bare words will not make an arrest: there must be an actual touching of the body; or, what is tantamount, a power of taking immediate possession of the body, and the party’s submission thereto. Genner v. Sparkes, 1 Salk. 79. Where a bailiff, having a writ against a person, met him on horseback, and said to him, “You are my prisoner,” upon which he turned back and submitted, this was held to be a good arrest, though the bailiff never laid hand on him. But if, on the bailiff’s saying those words, he had fled, it had been no arrest, unless the bailiff had laid hold of him. Homer v. Battyn, Buffer’s N. P. 62. The same doctrine is held in other cases. Russen v. Lucas & al., 1 Car. & P. 153; Chinn v. Morris, 2 Car. & P. 361; Pocock v. Moore, Ry. & M. 321; Strout v. Gooch, 8 Greenl. 126; Gold v. Bissell, 1 Wend. 210.

Where, upon a magistrate’s warrant being shown to the plaintiff, the latter voluntarily and without compulsion attended the constable who had the warrant to the magistrate, it was held there was no sufficient imprisonment to support an action. Arrowsmith v. Le Mesurier, 2 B. & P. N. R. 211. But in this case there was no declaration of any arrest, and the warrant was in fact used only as a summons. And if the decision cannot be sustained upon this distinction, it must be regarded as of doubtful authority.

Starkie says that in ordinary practice words are sufficient to constitute an imprisonment, if they impose a restraint upon the person, and the plaintiff is accordingly restrained; for he is not obliged to incur the risk of personal violence and insult by resisting, until actual violence be used. 3 Stark. Ev. 1113. This principle is reasonable in itself, and is fully sustained by the authorities above cited. Nor does it seem necessary that there should be any very formal declaration of an arrest. If the officer goes for the purpose of executing his warrant; has the party in his presence and power; if the party so understands it, and in consequence thereof submits, and the officer, in execution of the warrant, takes the party before a magistrate, or receives money or property in discharge of his person, we think it is in law an arrest, although he did not touch any part of the body.

In the case at bar, it clearly appears that the plaintiff did not intend to pay the tax, unless compelled by an arrest of her person. The collector was so informed. He then proceeded to enforce the collection of the tax,—declared that he arrested her,—and she, under that restraint, paid the money. This is a sufficient arrest and imprisonment to sustain the action, and there must, therefore, be

Judgment on the verdict.[^[30]]

FOTHERINGHAM v. ADAMS EXPRESS CO.
In the United States Circuit Court, Eastern District, Missouri, September 24, 1888.
Reported in 36 Federal Reporter, 252.

Thayer, J.[^[31]] With reference to the motion for a new trial which has been filed in this case and duly considered, it will suffice to say, that I entertain no doubt that the jury were warranted in finding that plaintiff was unlawfully restrained of his liberty from about the 27th or 28th of October until the 10th of November following; that is to say, for a period of about two weeks. The testimony in the case clearly showed that during that period he was constantly guarded by detectives employed by defendant for that purpose; that he was at no time free to come and go as he pleased; that his movements were at all times subject to the control and direction of those who had him in charge; that he was urged by them on several occasions to confess his guilt, and make known his confederates; and that he was subjected to repeated examinations and cross-examinations touching the robbery, of such character as clearly to imply that he was regarded as a criminal, and that force would be used to detain him if he attempted to assert his liberty. The jury in all probability found (as they were warranted in doing) that during the time plaintiff remained in company with the detectives, he was in fact deprived of all real freedom of action, and that whatever consent he gave to such restraint was an enforced consent, and did not justify the detention without a warrant. It is manifest that the court ought not to disturb the finding on that issue.[^[32]]

BIRD v. JONES
In the Queen’s Bench, Trinity Vacation, 1845.
Reported in 7 Queen’s Bench Reports, 742.

This action was tried before Lord Denman, C. J., at the Middlesex sittings after Michaelmas term, 1843, when a verdict was found for the plaintiff.

In Hilary term, 1844, Thesiger obtained a rule nisi for a new trial, on the ground of misdirection.

In Trinity term, in the same year (June 5), Platt, Humfrey, and Hance showed cause, and Sir F. Thesiger, Solicitor-General, supported the rule.

The judgments sufficiently explain the nature of the case.

Cur. adv. vult.

In this vacation (9th July), there being a difference of opinion on the bench, the learned judges who heard the argument delivered judgment seriatim.

Coleridge, J. In this case, in which we have unfortunately been unable to agree in our judgment, I am now to pronounce the opinion which I have formed; and I shall be able to do so very briefly, because, having had the opportunity of reading a judgment prepared by my Brother Patteson, and entirely agreeing with it, I may content myself with referring to the statement he has made in detail of those preliminary points in which we all, I believe, agree, and which bring the case up to that point upon which its decision must certainly turn, and with regard to which our difference exists.

This point is, whether certain facts, which may be taken as clear upon the evidence, amount to an imprisonment. These facts, stated shortly, and as I understand them, are in effect as follows:—

A part of a public highway was inclosed, and appropriated for spectators of a boat-race, paying a price for their seats. The plaintiff was desirous of entering this part, and was opposed by the defendant; but, after a struggle, during which no momentary detention of his person took place, he succeeded in climbing over the inclosure. Two policemen were then stationed by the defendant to prevent, and they did prevent, him from passing onwards in the direction in which he declared his wish to go; but he was allowed to remain unmolested where he was, and was at liberty to go, and was told that he was so, in the only other direction by which he could pass. This he refused for some time, and during that time remained where he had thus placed himself.

These are the facts; and, setting aside those which do not properly bear on the question now at issue, there will remain these: that the plaintiff, being in a public highway and desirous of passing along it in a particular direction, is prevented from doing so by the orders of the defendant, and that the defendant’s agents for the purpose are policemen, from whom, indeed, no unnecessary violence was to be anticipated, or such as they believed unlawful, yet who might be expected to execute such commands as they deemed lawful with all necessary force, however resisted. But although thus obstructed, the plaintiff was at liberty to move his person and go in any other direction, at his free will and pleasure; and no actual force or restraint on his person was used, unless the obstruction before mentioned amounts to so much.

I lay out of consideration the question of right or wrong between these parties. The acts will amount to imprisonment, neither more nor less, from their being wrongful or capable of justification.

And I am of opinion that there was no imprisonment. To call it so appears to me to confound partial obstruction and disturbance with total obstruction and detention. A prison may have its boundary large or narrow, visible and tangible, or, though real, still in the conception only; it may itself be movable or fixed; but a boundary it must have, and that boundary the party imprisoned must be prevented from passing; he must be prevented from leaving that place, within the ambit of which the party imprisoning would confine him, except by prison breach. Some confusion seems to me to arise from confounding imprisonment of the body with mere loss of freedom: it is one part of the definition of freedom to be able to go whithersoever one pleases; but imprisonment is something more than the mere loss of this power: it includes the notion of restraint within some limits defined by a will or power exterior to our own.

In Com. Dig. Imprisonment (G), it is said: “Every restraint of the liberty of a free man will be an imprisonment.” For this the authorities cited are 2 Inst. 482; Cro. Car. 209. But when these are referred to, it will be seen that nothing was intended at all inconsistent with what I have ventured to lay down above. In both books the object was to point out that a prison was not necessarily what is commonly so called, a place locally defined and appointed for the reception of prisoners. Lord Coke is commenting on the statute of Westminster 2d,[^[33]] in prisona, and says: “Every restraint of the liberty of a freeman is an imprisonment, although he be not within the walls of any common prison.” The passage in Cro. Car. 209, is from a curious case of an information against Sir Miles Hobert and Mr. Stroud for escaping out of the Gate-house Prison, to which they had been committed by the king. The question was whether, under the circumstances, they had ever been there imprisoned. Owing to the sickness in London, and through the favor of the keeper, these gentlemen had not, except on one occasion, ever been within the walls of the Gate-house. The occasion is somewhat singularly expressed in the decision of the court, which was “that their voluntary retirement to the close stool” in the Gate-house “made them to be prisoners.” The resolution, however, in question is this: “that the prison of the King’s Bench is not any local prison confined only to one place, and that every place where any person is restrained of his liberty is a prison; as if one take sanctuary and depart thence, he shall be said to break prison.”

On a case of this sort, which, if there be difficulty in it, is at least purely elementary, it is not easy nor necessary to enlarge, and I am unwilling to put any extreme case hypothetically; but I wish to meet one suggestion, which has been put as avoiding one of the difficulties which cases of this sort might seem to suggest. If it be said that to hold the present case to amount to an imprisonment would turn every obstruction of the exercise of a right of way into an imprisonment, the answer is that there must be something like personal menace or force accompanying the act of obstruction, and that, with this, it will amount to imprisonment. I apprehend that is not so. If, in the course of a night, both ends of a street were walled up, and there was no egress from the house but into the street, I should have no difficulty in saying that the inhabitants were thereby imprisoned; but if only one end were walled up, and an armed force stationed outside to prevent any scaling of the wall or passage that way, I should feel equally clear that there was no imprisonment. If there were, the street would obviously be the prison, and yet, as obviously, none would be confined to it.

Knowing that my lord has entertained strongly an opinion directly contrary to this, I am under serious apprehension that I overlook some difficulty in forming my own; but, if it exists, I have not been able to discover it, and am therefore bound to state that, according to my view of the case, the rule should be absolute for a new trial.[^[34]]

Lord Denman, C. J. I have not drawn up a formal judgment in this case, because I hoped to the last that the arguments which my learned brothers would produce in support of their opinion might alter mine. We have freely discussed the matter both orally and in written communications; but, after hearing what they have advanced, I am compelled to say that my first impression remains. If, as I must believe, it is a wrong one, it may be in some measure accounted for by the circumstances attending the case. A company unlawfully obstructed a public way for their own profit, extorting money from passengers, and hiring policemen to effect this purpose. The plaintiff, wishing to exercise his right of way, is stopped by force, and ordered to move in a direction which he wished not to take. He is told at the same time that a force is at hand ready to compel his submission. That proceeding appears to me equivalent to being pulled by the collar out of the one line and into the other.

There is some difficulty, perhaps, in defining imprisonment in the abstract without reference to its illegality; nor is it necessary for me to do so, because I consider these acts as amounting to imprisonment. That word I understand to mean any restraint of the person by force. In Buller’s Nisi Prius, p. 22, it is said: “Every restraint of a man’s liberty under the custody of another, either in a gaol, house, stocks, or in the street, is in law an imprisonment; and whenever it is done without a proper authority, is false imprisonment, for which the law gives an action; and this is commonly joined to assault and battery; for every imprisonment includes a battery, and every battery an assault.” It appears, therefore, that the technical language has received a very large construction, and that there need not be any touching of the person: a locking up would constitute an imprisonment, without touching. From the language of Thorpe, C. J., which Mr. Selwyn cites from the Book of Assizes, it appears that, even in very early times, restraint of liberty by force was understood to be the reasonable definition of imprisonment.

I had no idea that any person in these times supposed any particular boundary to be necessary to constitute imprisonment, or that the restraint of a man’s person from doing what he desires ceases to be an imprisonment because he may find some means of escape.

It is said that the party here was at liberty to go in another direction. I am not sure that in fact he was, because the same unlawful power which prevented him from taking one course might, in case of acquiescence, have refused him any other. But this liberty to do something else does not appear to me to affect the question of imprisonment. As long as I am prevented from doing what I have a right to do, of what importance is it that I am permitted to do something else? How does the imposition of an unlawful condition show that I am not restrained? If I am locked in a room, am I not imprisoned, because I might effect my escape through a window, or because I might find an exit dangerous or inconvenient to myself, as by wading through water, or by taking a route so circuitous that my necessary affairs should suffer by delay?

It appears to me that this is a total deprivation of liberty with reference to the purpose for which he lawfully wished to employ his liberty; and, being effected by force, it is not the mere obstruction of a way, but a restraint of the person. The case cited as occurring before Lord Chief Justice Tindal, as I understand it, is much in point. He held it an imprisonment where the defendant stopped the plaintiff on his road till he had read a libel to him. Yet he did not prevent his escaping in another direction.

It is said that if any damage arises from such obstruction, a special action on the case may be brought. Must I then sue out a new writ stating that the defendant employed direct force to prevent my going where my business called me, whereby I sustained loss? And if I do, is it certain that I shall not be told that I have misconceived my remedy, for all flows from the false imprisonment, and that should have been the subject of an action of trespass and assault? For the jury properly found that the whole of the defendant’s conduct was continuous: it commenced in illegality; and the plaintiff did right to resist it as an outrageous violation of the liberty of the subject from the very first.

Rule absolute.[^[35]]

CHAPTER II
NEGLIGENT INTERFERENCE

Section I
Negligence as a Ground of Liability

WEAVER v. WARD
In the King’s Bench, Easter Term, 1616.
Reported in Hobart, 134.

Weaver brought an action of trespass of assault and battery against Ward. The defendant pleaded that he was, amongst others, by the commandment of the lords of the council, a trained soldier in London, of the band of one Andrews, captain, and so was the plaintiff: and that they were skirmishing with their muskets charged with powder for their exercise in re militari against another captain and his band; and as they were so skirmishing, the defendant, casualiter et per infortunium et contra voluntatem suam, in discharging his piece, did hurt and wound the plaintiff; which is the same, &c., absque hoc, that he was guilty aliter sive alio modo. And, upon demurrer by the plaintiff, judgment was given for him; for, though it were agreed that if men tilt or tourney in the presence of the king, or if two masters of defence playing their prizes kill one another, that this shall be no felony, or if a lunatic kill a man, or the like; because felony must be done animo felonico; yet, in trespass, which tends only to give damages according to hurt or loss, it is not so; and therefore, if a lunatic hurt a man, he shall be answerable in trespass,[^[36]] and, therefore, no man shall be excused of a trespass (for this is the nature of an excuse, and not of a justification, prout ei bene licuit), except it may be judged utterly without his fault; as if a man by force take my hand and strike you, or if here the defendant had said that the plaintiff ran across his piece when it was discharging, or had set forth the case with the circumstances so as it had appeared to the court that it had been inevitable, and that the defendant had committed no negligence to give occasion to the hurt.[^[37]]

BROWN v. KENDALL
Supreme Judicial Court, Massachusetts, October Term, 1850.
Reported in 6 Cushing, 292.

This was an action of trespass for assault and battery, originally commenced against George K. Kendall, the defendant, who died pending the suit, and his executrix was summoned in.

It appeared in evidence, on the trial, which was before Wells, C. J., in the Court of Common Pleas, that two dogs, belonging to the plaintiff and the defendant, respectively, were fighting in the presence of their masters; that the defendant took a stick about four feet long, and commenced beating the dogs in order to separate them; that the plaintiff was looking on, at the distance of about a rod, and that he advanced a step or two towards the dogs. In their struggle, the dogs approached the place where the plaintiff was standing. The defendant retreated backwards from before the dogs, striking them as he retreated; and as he approached the plaintiff, with his back towards him, in raising his stick over his shoulder, in order to strike the dogs, he accidentally hit the plaintiff in the eye, inflicting upon him a severe injury.

Whether it was necessary or proper for the defendant to interfere in the fight between the dogs; whether the interference, if called for was in a proper manner, and what degree of care was exercised by each party on the occasion; were the subject of controversy between the parties, upon all the evidence in the case, of which the foregoing is an outline.

The defendant requested the judge to instruct the jury, that “if both the plaintiff and defendant at the time of the blow were using ordinary care, or if at that time the defendant was using ordinary care and the plaintiff was not, or if at that time both plaintiff and defendant were not using ordinary care, then the plaintiff could not recover.”

The defendant further requested the judge to instruct the jury, that, “under the circumstances, if the plaintiff was using ordinary care and the defendant was not, the plaintiff could not recover, and that the burden of proof on all these propositions was on the plaintiff.”

The judge declined to give the instructions, as above requested, but left the case to the jury under the following instructions: “If the defendant, in beating the dogs, was doing a necessary act, or one which it was his duty under the circumstances of the case to do, and was doing it in a proper way; then he was not responsible in this action, provided he was using ordinary care at the time of the blow. If it was not a necessary act; if he was not in duty bound to attempt to part the dogs, but might with propriety interfere or not as he chose; the defendant was responsible for the consequences of the blow, unless it appeared that he was in the exercise of extraordinary care, so that the accident was inevitable, using the word inevitable not in a strict but a popular sense.”

“If, however, the plaintiff, when he met with the injury, was not in the exercise of ordinary care, he cannot recover, and this rule applies, whether the interference of the defendant in the fight of the dogs was necessary or not. If the jury believe, that it was the duty of the defendant to interfere, then the burden of proving negligence on the part of the defendant, and ordinary care on the part of the plaintiff, is on the plaintiff. If the jury believe, that the act of interference in the fight was unnecessary, then the burden of proving extraordinary care on the part of the defendant, or want of ordinary care on the part of the plaintiff, is on defendant.”

The jury under these instructions returned a verdict for the plaintiff; whereupon the defendant alleged exceptions.

Shaw, C. J. This is an action of trespass, vi et armis, brought by George Brown against George K. Kendall, for an assault and battery; and the original defendant having died pending the action, his executrix has been summoned in. The rule of the common law, by which this action would abate by the death of either party, is reversed in this Commonwealth by statute, which provides that actions of trespass for assault and battery shall survive. Rev. Sts. c. 93, § 7.

The facts set forth in the bill of exceptions preclude the supposition, that the blow, inflicted by the hand of the defendant upon the person of the plaintiff, was intentional. The whole case proceeds on the assumption, that the damage sustained by the plaintiff, from the stick held by the defendant, was inadvertent and unintentional; and the case involves the question how far, and under what qualifications, the party by whose unconscious act the damage was done is responsible for it. We use the term “unintentional” rather than involuntary, because in some of the cases, it is stated, that the act of holding and using a weapon or instrument, the movement of which is the immediate cause of hurt to another, is a voluntary act, although its particular effect in hitting and hurting another is not within the purpose or intention of the party doing the act.

It appears to us, that some of the confusion in the cases on this subject has grown out of the long-vexed question, under the rule of the common law, whether a party’s remedy, where he has one, should be sought in an action of the case, or of trespass. This is very distinguishable from the question, whether in a given case, any action will lie. The result of these cases is, that if the damage complained of is the immediate effect of the act of the defendant, trespass vi et armis lies; if consequential only, and not immediate, case is the proper remedy. Leame v. Bray, 3 East, 593; Huggett v. Montgomery, 2 B. & P. N. R. 446, Day’s Ed., and notes.

In these discussions, it is frequently stated by judges, that when one receives injury from the direct act of another, trespass will lie. But we think this is said in reference to the question, whether trespass and not case will lie, assuming that the facts are such, that some action will lie. These dicta are no authority, we think, for holding, that damage received by a direct act of force from another will be sufficient to maintain an action of trespass, whether the act was lawful or unlawful, and neither wilful, intentional, or careless. In the principal case cited, Leame v. Bray, the damage arose from the act of the defendant, in driving on the wrong side of the road, in a dark night, which was clearly negligent, if not unlawful. In the course of the argument of that case (p. 595), Lawrence, J., said: “There certainly are cases in the books, where, the injury being direct and immediate, trespass has been holden to lie, though the injury was not intentional.” The term “injury” implies something more than damage; but, independently of that consideration, the proposition may be true, because though the injury was unintentional, the act may have been unlawful or negligent, and the cases cited by him are perfectly consistent with that supposition. So the same learned judge in the same case says (p. 597), “No doubt trespass lies against one who drives a carriage against another, whether done wilfully or not.” But he immediately adds, “Suppose one who is driving a carriage is negligently and heedlessly looking about him, without attending to the road when persons are passing, and thereby runs over a child and kills him, is it not manslaughter? and if so, it must be trespass; for every manslaughter includes trespass;” showing what he understood by a case not wilful.

We think, as the result of all the authorities, the rule is correctly stated by Mr. Greenleaf, that the plaintiff must come prepared with evidence to show either that the intention was unlawful, or that the defendant was in fault; for if the injury was unavoidable, and the conduct of the defendant was free from blame, he will not be liable. 2 Greenl. Ev. §§ 85–92. Wakeman v. Robinson, 1 Bing. 213. If, in the prosecution of a lawful act, a casualty purely accidental arises, no action can be supported for an injury arising therefrom. Davis v. Saunders, 2 Chit. R. 639; Com. Dig. Battery, A. (Day’s Ed.) and notes; Vincent v. Stinehour, 7 Vt. 62. In applying these rules to the present case, we can perceive no reason why the instructions asked for by the defendant ought not to have been given; to this effect, that if both plaintiff and defendant at the time of the blow were using ordinary care, or if at that time the defendant was using ordinary care, and the plaintiff was not, or if at that time, both the plaintiff and defendant were not using ordinary care, then the plaintiff could not recover.

In using this term, ordinary care, it may be proper to state, that what constitutes ordinary care will vary with the circumstances of cases. In general, it means that kind and degree of care, which prudent and cautious men would use, such as is required by the exigency of the case, and such as is necessary to guard against probable danger. A man, who should have occasion to discharge a gun, on an open and extensive marsh, or in a forest, would be required to use less circumspection and care, than if he were to do the same thing in an inhabited town, village, or city. To make an accident, or casualty, or, as the law sometimes states it, inevitable accident, it must be such an accident as the defendant could not have avoided by the use of the kind and degree of care necessary to the exigency, and in the circumstances in which he was placed.

We are not aware of any circumstances in this case, requiring a distinction between acts which it was lawful and proper to do, and acts of legal duty. There are cases, undoubtedly, in which officers are bound to act under process, for the legality of which they are not responsible, and perhaps some others in which this distinction would be important. We can have no doubt that the act of the defendant in attempting to part the fighting dogs, one of which was his own, and for the injurious acts of which he might be responsible, was a lawful and proper act, which he might do by proper and safe means. If, then, in doing this act, using due care and all proper precautions necessary to the exigency of the case, to avoid hurt to others, in raising his stick for that purpose, he accidentally hit the plaintiff in his eye, and wounded him, this was the result of pure accident, or was involuntary and unavoidable, and therefore the action would not lie. Of if the defendant was chargeable with some negligence, and if the plaintiff was also chargeable with negligence, we think the plaintiff cannot recover without showing that the damage was caused wholly by the act of the defendant, and that the plaintiff’s own negligence did not contribute as an efficient cause to produce it.

The court instructed the jury, that if it was not a necessary act, and the defendant was not in duty bound to part the dogs, but might with propriety interfere or not as he chose, the defendant was responsible for the consequences of the blow, unless it appeared that he was in the exercise of extraordinary care, so that the accident was inevitable, using the word not in a strict but a popular sense. This is to be taken in connection with the charge afterwards given, that if the jury believed, that the act of interference in the fight was unnecessary (that is, as before explained, not a duty incumbent on the defendant), then the burden of proving extraordinary care on the part of the defendant, or want of ordinary care on the part of plaintiff, was on the defendant.

The court are of opinion that these directions were not conformable to law. If the act of hitting the plaintiff was unintentional, on the part of the defendant, and done in the doing of a lawful act, then the defendant was not liable, unless it was done in the want of exercise of due care, adapted to the exigency of the case, and therefore such want of due care became part of the plaintiff’s case, and the burden of proof was on the plaintiff to establish it. 2 Greenl. Ev. § 85; Powers v. Russell, 13 Pick. 69, 76; Tourtellot v. Rosebrook, 11 Met. 460.

Perhaps the learned judge, by the use of the term extraordinary care, in the above charge, explained as it is by the context, may have intended nothing more than that increased degree of care and diligence, which the exigency of particular circumstances might require, and which men of ordinary care and prudence would use under like circumstances, to guard against danger. If such was the meaning of this part of the charge, then it does not differ from our views, as above explained. But we are of opinion, that the other part of the charge, that the burden of proof was on the defendant, was incorrect. Those facts which are essential to enable the plaintiff to recover, he takes the burden of proving. The evidence may be offered by the plaintiff or by the defendant; the question of due care, or want of care, may be essentially connected with the main facts, and arise from the same proof; but the effect of the rule, as to the burden of proof, is this, that when the proof is all in, and before the jury, from whatever side it comes, and whether directly proved, or inferred from circumstances, if it appears that the defendant was doing a lawful act, and unintentionally hit and hurt the plaintiff, then unless it also appears to the satisfaction of the jury, that the defendant is chargeable with some fault, negligence, carelessness, or want of prudence, the plaintiff fails to sustain the burden of proof, and is not entitled to recover.

New trial ordered[^[38]]

STANLEY v. POWELL
In the Queen’s Bench Division, November 3, 1890.
Reported in [1891] 1 Queen’s Bench, 86.

Denman, J. This case was tried before me and a special jury at the last Maidstone Summer Assizes.[^[39]]

In the statement of claim the plaintiff alleged that the defendant had negligently and wrongfully and unskilfully fired his gun and wounded the plaintiff in his eye, and that the plaintiff, in consequence, had lost his sight and suffered other damage. The defendant denied the negligence alleged. After the evidence on both sides, which was conflicting, had been heard, I left the three following questions to the jury: 1. Was the plaintiff injured by a shot from defendant’s gun? 2. Was the defendant guilty of negligence in firing the charge to which that shot belonged as he did? 3. Damages.

The undisputed facts were, that on Nov. 29, 1888, the defendant and several others were pheasant shooting in a party, some being inside and some outside of a wood which the beaters were beating. The right of shooting was in one Greenwood, who was of the party. The plaintiff was employed by Greenwood to carry cartridges and the game which might be shot. Several beaters were driving the game along a plantation of saplings towards an open drive. The plaintiff stood just outside a gate which led into a field outside the plantation, at the end of the drive. The defendant was walking along in that field a few yards from the hedge which bounded the plantation. As he was walking along a pheasant rose inside the plantation; the defendant fired one barrel at this bird, and, according to the evidence for the defendant, struck it with his first shot. There was a considerable conflict of evidence as to details; but the jury must, I think, be taken to have adopted the version of the facts sworn to by the defendant’s witnesses. They swore that the bird, when struck by the first shot, began to lower and turn back towards the beaters, whereupon the defendant fired his second barrel and killed the bird, but that a shot, glancing from the bough of an oak which was in or close to the hedge, and, striking the plaintiff, must have caused the injury complained of. The oak in question, according to the defendant’s evidence, was partly between the defendant and the bird when the second barrel was fired, but it was not in a line with the plaintiff, but, on the contrary, so much out of that line, that the shot must have been diverted to a considerable extent from the direction in which the gun must have been pointed in order to hit the plaintiff. The distance between the plaintiff and the defendant, in a direct line, when the second barrel was fired, was about thirty yards. The case for the plaintiff was entirely different; but I think it must be held that the jury took the defendant’s account of the matter, for they found the second question left to them in the negative. Before summing up the case to the jury, I called the attention of the parties to the doctrine which seemed to have been laid down in some old cases—that, even in the absence of negligence, an action of trespass might lie; and it was agreed that I should leave the question of negligence to the jury, but that, if necessary, the pleadings were deemed to have been amended so as to raise any case or defence open upon the facts with liberty to the court to draw inferences of fact, and that the damages should be assessed contingently. The jury assessed them at £100. I left either party to move the court for judgment; but it was afterwards agreed that the case should be argued before myself on further consideration, and that I should give judgment, notwithstanding that I had left the parties to move the court, as though I had originally reserved it for further consideration before myself.

Having heard the arguments, I am of opinion that, by no amendment that could be made consistently with the finding of the jury could I properly give judgment for the plaintiff. It was contended on his behalf that this was a case in which an action of trespass would have lain before the Judicature Acts; and this contention was mainly founded on certain dicta which, until considered with reference to those cases in which they are uttered, seem to support that contention; but no decision was quoted, nor do I think that any can be found which goes so far as to hold, that if A. is injured by a shot from a gun fired at a bird by B., an action of trespass will necessarily lie, even though B. is proved to have fired the gun without negligence and without intending to injure the plaintiff or to shoot in his direction.

The jury having found that there was no negligence on the part of the defendant, the most favorable way in which it is now possible to put the case for the plaintiff is to consider the action as brought for a trespass, and to consider that the defendant has put upon the record a defence denying negligence, and specifically alleging the facts, sworn to by his witnesses, which the jury must be considered to have found proved, and then to consider whether those facts, coupled with the absence of negligence established by the jury, amount to an excuse in law.

The earliest case relied upon by the plaintiff was one in the year-book 21 Hen. 7, 28 A., which is referred to by Grose, J., in the course of the argument in Leame v. Bray, 3 East, 593, to be mentioned presently, in these words: “There is a case put in the year-book, 21 Hen. 7, 28 A., that where one shot an arrow at a mark which glanced from it and struck another, it was holden to be trespass.” Returning to the case in the year-book, it appears that the passage in question was a mere dictum of Rede, who (see 5 Foss’ Lives of the Judges, p. 230) was at the time (1506) either a judge of the King’s Bench or C. J. of the Common Pleas, which he became in October in that year, in a case of a very different kind from that in question, and it only amounts to a statement that an action of trespass may lie even where the act done by the defendant is unintentional. The words relied on are, “Mes ou on tire a les buts et blesse un home, coment que est incontre sa volonte, il sera dit un trespassor incontre son entent.” But in that very passage Rede makes observations which show that he has in his mind cases in which that which would be prima facie a trespass may be excused. The next case in order of date relied upon for the plaintiff was Weaver v. Ward, decided in 1607. There is no doubt that that case contains dicta which per se would be in favor of the plaintiff, but it also contains the following summing up of the law applicable to cases of unintentional injury by acts which are prima facie trespasses: “Therefore, no man shall be excused of a trespass ... except it may be judged utterly without his fault,” showing clearly that there may be such cases. That case, after all, only decided that where the plaintiff and defendant were skirmishing as soldiers of the train-band, and the one, “casualiter, et per infortunium, et contra voluntatem suam” (which must be translated “accidentally and involuntarily”) shot the other, an action of trespass would lie, unless he could show that such involuntary and accidental shooting was done under such circumstances as utterly to negative negligence. Such cases may easily be supposed, in which there could be no two opinions about the matter; but other cases may, as the present case did, involve considerable conflicts of evidence and opinion which until recently a jury only could dispose of. The case of Gibbons v. Pepper, 4 Mod. 405, decided in 1695, merely decided that a plea merely showing that an accident caused by a runaway horse was inevitable, was a bad plea in an action of trespass, because, if inevitable, that was a defence under the general issue. It was a mere decision on the pleading, and laid down nothing as regards the point raised in the present case. The concluding words of the judgment, which show clearly the ratio decidendi of that case, are these: “He should have pleaded the general issue, for if the horse ran away against his will he would have been found not guilty, because in such a case it cannot be said with any color of reason to be a battery in the rider.” The more modern cases of Wakeman v. Robinson and Hall v. Fearnley, lay down the same rule as regards the pleading point, though the former case may also be relied upon as an authority by way of dictum in favor of the plaintiff, and the latter may be fairly relied upon by the defendant; for Wightman, J., in his judgment explains Wakeman v. Robinson thus: “The act of the defendant” (viz., driving the cart at the very edge of a narrow pavement on which the plaintiff was walking, so as to knock the plaintiff down) “was prima facie unjustifiable, and required an excuse to be shown. When the motion in this case was first made, I had in my recollection the case of Wakeman v. Robinson. It was there agreed that an involuntary act might be a defence on the general issue. The decision indeed turned on a different point; but the general proposition is laid down. I think the omission to plead the defence here deprived the defendant of the benefit of it, and entitled the plaintiff to recover.”

But in truth neither case decides whether, where an act such as discharging a gun is voluntary, but the result injurious without negligence, an action of trespass can nevertheless be supported as against a plea pleaded and proved, and which the jury find established, to the effect that there was no negligence on the part of the defendant.

The case of Underwood v. Hewson, 1 Str. 596, decided in 1724, was relied on for the plaintiff. The report is very short. “The defendant was uncocking a gun, and the plaintiff standing to see it, it went off and wounded him; and at the trial it was held that the plaintiff might maintain trespass—Strange pro defendente.” The marginal note in Nolan’s edition of 1795, not necessarily Strange’s own composition, is this: “Trespass lies for an accidental hurt;” and in that edition there is a reference to Buller’s N. P., p. 16. On referring to Buller, p. 16, where he is dealing with Weaver v. Ward, I find he writes as follows: “So (it is no battery) if one soldier hurt another in exercise; but if he plead it he must set forth the circumstances, so as to make it appear to the court that it was inevitable, and that he committed no negligence to give occasion to the hurt, for it is not not enough to say that he did it casualiter, et per infortunium, et contra voluntatem suam; for no man shall be excused of a trespass, unless it be justified entirely without his default: Weaver v. Ward; and, therefore, it has been holden that an action lay where the plaintiff standing by to see the defendant uncock his gun was accidentally wounded: Underwood v. Hewson.” On referring back to Weaver v. Ward, I can find nothing in the report to show that the court held, that in order to constitute a defence in the case of a trespass it is necessary to show that the act was inevitable. If inevitable, it would seem that there was a defence under the general issue; but a distinction is drawn between an act which is inevitable and an act which is excusable, and what Weaver v. Ward really lays down is that “no man shall be excused of a trespass except it may be judged utterly without his fault.”

Day v. Edwards, D. & E. 5 T. R. 648 (1794), merely decides that where a man negligently drives a cart against the plaintiff’s carriage, the injury being committed by the immediate act complained of, the remedy must be trespass, and not case.

But the case upon which most reliance was placed by the plaintiff’s counsel was Leame v. Bray, 3 East, 593. That was an action of trespass in which the plaintiff complained that the defendant with force and arms drove and struck a chaise which he was driving on the highway against the plaintiff’s curricle, which the plaintiff’s servant was driving, by means whereof the servant was thrown out, and the horses ran away, and the plaintiff, who jumped out to save his life, was injured. The facts stated in the report include a statement that “the accident happened in a dark night, owing to the defendant driving his carriage on the wrong side of the road, and the parties not being able to see each other; and that if the defendant had kept his right side there was ample room for the carriages to have passed without injury.” The report goes on to state: “But it did not appear that blame was imputable to the defendant in any other respect as to the manner of his driving. It was therefore objected for the defendant, that the injury having happened from negligence and not wilfully, the proper remedy was by an action on the case, and not of trespass vi et armis; and the plaintiff was thereupon nonsuited.” On the argument of the rule to set aside the verdict the whole discussion turned upon the question whether the injury was, as put by Lawrence, J., at p. 596 of the report, immediate from the defendant’s act, or consequential only from it, and in the result the nonsuit was set aside. But it clearly appears from the report that there was evidence upon which the jury might have found negligence, and indeed the defendant’s counsel assumed it in the very objection which prevailed with Lord Ellenborough when he nonsuited the plaintiff. There is nothing in any of the judgments to show that if in that case a plea had been pleaded denying any negligence, and the jury had found that the defendant was not guilty of any negligence, but (for instance) that the accident happened wholly through the darkness of the night making it impossible to distinguish one side of the road from the other and without negligence on either side, the court would have held that the defendant would have been liable either in trespass or in case.

All the cases to which I have referred were before the Court of Exchequer in 1875, in the case of Holmes v. Mather, and Bramwell, B., in giving judgment in that case, dealt with them thus: “As to the cases cited, most of them are really decisions on the form of action, whether case or trespass. The result of them is this, and it is intelligible enough: if the act that does an injury is an act of direct force vi et armis, trespass is the proper remedy (if there is any remedy), where the act is wrongful either as being wilful or as being the result of negligence. Where the act is not wrongful for either of these reasons, no action is maintainable, though trespass would be the proper form of action if it were wrongful. That is the effect of the decisions.”

This view of the older authorities is in accordance with a passage cited by Mr. Dickens from Bacon’s Abridgment, Trespass, I., p. 706, with a marginal reference to Weaver v. Ward. In Bacon the word “inevitable” does not find a place. “If the circumstance which is specially pleaded in an action of trespass do not make the act complained of lawful” (by which I understand justifiable even if purposely done to the extent of purposely inflicting the injury, as, for instance, in a case of self-defence) “and only make it excusable, it is proper to plead this circumstance in excuse; and it is in this case necessary for the defendant to show not only that the act complained of was accidental” (by which I understand, “that the injury was unintentional”), “but likewise that it was not owing to neglect or want of due caution.” In the present case the plaintiff sued in respect of an injury owing to the defendant’s negligence,—there was no pretence for saying that it was intentional so far as any injury to the plaintiff was concerned,—and the jury negatived such negligence. It was argued that nevertheless, inasmuch as the plaintiff was injured by a shot from the defendant’s gun, that was an injury owing to an act of force committed by the defendant, and therefore an action would lie. I am of opinion that this is not so, and that against any statement of claim which the plaintiff could suggest the defendant must succeed if he were to plead the facts sworn to by the witnesses for the defendant in this case, and the jury believing those facts, as they must now be taken by me to have done, found the verdict which they have found as regards negligence. In other words, I am of opinion that if the case is regarded as an action on the case for an injury by negligence the plaintiff has failed to establish that which is the very gist of such an action; if, on the other hand, it is turned into an action for trespass, and the defendant is (as he must be) supposed to have pleaded a plea denying negligence and establishing that the injury was accidental in the sense above explained, the verdict of the jury is equally fatal to the action. I am, therefore, of opinion that I am bound to give judgment for the defendant. As to costs, they must follow, unless the defendant foregoes his right.

Judgment for the defendant.[^[40]]

SULLIVAN v. OLD COLONY STREET RAILWAY
Supreme Judicial Court, Massachusetts, November 30, 1908.
Reported in 200 Massachusetts Reports, 303.

Tort. The first count in the declaration alleged that, while the plaintiff was a passenger on an electric car of the defendant, the car was derailed at Tiverton, owing to the defendant’s negligence, “whereby the plaintiff was jolted and in many ways injured externally and internally.”

At the trial, plaintiff testified substantially to the same effect as the allegations in the declaration. As to the derailment, he testified that it was violent and that he was much thrown about. The evidence for the defendant tended to show that there was practically no jar when the car left the rails at Tiverton.

At the close of the evidence plaintiff requested, among others, the following ruling:—

“1. Upon all the evidence the plaintiff is entitled to recover on the first count.”

The judge refused to so rule.

The judge instructed the jury, in part, as follows:—

“The only matters, then, of damages for you to consider are these: First, what was the effect upon the plaintiff of the jolts when the car was derailed? To what extent did they injure the plaintiff?”

Plaintiff excepted to the charge. Verdict for defendant.[^[41]]

Sheldon, J. No question was made at the trial but that the defendant was liable for any injury done to the plaintiff by reason of its car having left the track. But if no injury was caused by this to the plaintiff, if he suffered no damage whatever from the defendant’s negligence, then he would not be entitled to recover. Although there has been negligence in the performance of a legal duty, yet it is only those who have suffered damage therefrom that may maintain an action therefor. Heaven v. Pender, 11 Q. B. D. 503, 507; Farrell v. Waterbury Horse Railroad, 60 Conn. 239, 246; Salmon v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad, 19 Vroom, 5, 11; 2 Cooley on Torts (3d ed.), 791; Wharton on Negligence (2d ed.), sect. 3. In cases of negligence, there is no such invasion of rights as to entitle plaintiff to recover at least nominal damages, as in Hooten v. Barnard, 137 Mass. 36, and McAneany v. Jewett, 10 Allen, 151.[^[42]] Accordingly, the first and second of the plaintiff’s requests for rulings could not have been given, and the rulings made were all that the plaintiff was entitled to.

Exceptions overruled.[^[43]]

HART v. ALLEN
Supreme Court, Pennsylvania, October Term, 1833.
Reported in 2 Watts, 114.

Action on the case against owners of a vessel.[^[44]] Plaintiff put in evidence a bill of lading of chests of tea shipped on board defendant’s vessel; “to be delivered in good order, unavoidable accidents and the dangers of the river excepted....” Plaintiff also proved that the teas were delivered by defendants in a damaged state, owing to their having been wet. Defendants gave evidence that the boat, when on her passage up the river, was driven by a sudden squall of wind and snow sidewise, whereby the teas were wet and damaged; that she was well fitted for the voyage; that every exertion was made to save her; and that Samuel Johnston, the captain, was a man of experience. To rebut this the plaintiff gave evidence that Samuel Johnston was not an experienced boatman or pilot.

Judgment below for plaintiff. The original defendants brought error. One of the errors assigned was as follows:—

The court below erred in charging the jury, that although the accident in this case resulted from the act of God, and could not have been prevented by any human prudence or foresight; and although it would, in this respect, come within the exception that excuses the carrier in case of loss: still, if the crew of the boat was not sufficient, or if she was not under the control of a master or pilot sufficiently skilled to perform the duties corresponding to his station, the carrier cannot avail himself of the exception, nor excuse himself from responsibility to the owner, to the extent of the injury done to the goods. And also, in substance, that if the jury think that the boat was not fit for the voyage, or the master not competent, or the crew insufficient; they ought to find a verdict for the plaintiff, whatever might be their opinion as to the real cause of the upsetting of the boat.

Gibson, C. J.: Had the judge said no more than that the carrier is bound to provide a carriage or vessel in all respects adequate to the purpose, with a conductor or crew of competent skill or ability, and that “failing in these particulars, though the loss be occasioned by the act of God, he shall not set up a providential calamity to protect himself against what may have arisen from his own folly;” there would have been no room for an exception. But the cause was eventually put to the jury on a different principle: “though the accident resulted from the act of God,” it was said, “and could not have been prevented by any human prudence or foresight, and though it would in this respect otherwise have come within the exception that excuses the carrier in case of loss: still, if the crew of the office [?] were not sufficient, or if she were not under the control of a master or pilot sufficiently skilful to perform the duties correspondent to his station, the carrier cannot avail himself of the exception.” By this the jury were instructed, in accordance, as it was supposed, with the principle of Bell v. Reed and Beelor, 4 Binn. 127, that want of seaworthiness has the peculiar effect of casting every loss, from whatever cause, on the carrier, as a penalty, I presume, for his original delinquency, and not for its actual or supposed instrumentality in contributing to the disaster, which is admitted to have been produced, in this instance, by causes unconnected with the master or crew, and to have been of a nature which no human force or sagacity could control.

Does such a penalty necessarily result from the nature of the contract? A carrier is answerable for the consequences of negligence, not the abstract existence of it. Where the goods have arrived safe, no action lies against him for an intervening but inconsequential act of carelessness; nor can it be set up as a defence against payment of the freight; and for this plain reason, that the risk from it was all his own. Why, then, should it, in any other case, subject him to a loss which it did not contribute to produce, or give an advantage to one who was not prejudiced by it? It would require much to reconcile to any principle of policy or justice, a measure of responsibility which would cast the burthen of the loss on a carrier whose wagon had been snatched away by a whirlwind in crossing a bridge, merely because it had not been furnished with a proper cover or tilt to protect the goods from the weather. Yet the omission to provide such a cover would be gross negligence, but, like that imputed to the carrier in the case before us, such as could have had no imaginable effect on the event. A carrier is an insurer against all losses without regard to degrees of negligence in the production of them, except such as have been caused by an act of providence, or the common enemy: and why is he so? Undoubtedly to subserve the purposes, not of justice in the particular instance, but of policy and convenience: of policy, by removing from him all temptation to confederate with robbers or thieves—and of convenience, by relieving the owner of the goods from the necessity of proving actual negligence, which, the fact being peculiarly within the knowledge of the carrier or his servants, could seldom be done. Jones on Bail. 108, 109; 2 Kent, 59, 78. Such are the rule and the reason of it, and such is the exception. But we should enlarge the rule, or to speak more properly, narrow the exception far beyond the exigencies of policy or convenience, did we hold him an insurer against even the acts of providence, as a punishment for an abstract delinquency, where there was no room for the existence of a confederacy, or the operation of actual negligence; and to carry a responsibility, founded in no principle of natural equity beyond the requirements of necessity, would be gratuitous injustice. A delinquency which might have contributed to the disaster, such, for instance, as is imputable to the owner of a ship driven on a lee shore, for a defect in the rigging or sails, would undoubtedly be attended with different consequences; for as it would be impossible to ascertain the exact effect of the delinquency on the event, the loss would have to be borne by the delinquent on a very common principle, by which any one whose carelessness has increased the danger of injury from a sudden commotion of the elements, is chargeable with all the mischief that may ensue: as in Turberville v. Stamp, Skin. 681, where it was adjudged, that the negligent keeping of fire in a close would subject the party to all the consequences, though proximately produced by a sudden storm; and the same principle was held by this court in The Lehigh Bridge Company v. The Lehigh Navigation, 4 Rawle, 9. But it would be too much to require of the carrier to make good a loss from shipwreck, for having omitted to provide the ship with proper papers, which are a constituent part of seaworthiness, and the omission of them an undoubted negligence.

The first question, therefore, will be, whether the captain and crew of the boat had the degree of ability and skill thus indicated; and if it be found that they had not, then the second question will be, whether the want of it contributed in any degree to the actual disaster: but if either of these be found for the carrier, it will be decision [decisive?] of the cause. It seems, therefore, that ... the cause ought to be put, on these principles, to another jury.

Judgment reversed, and a venire de novo awarded.[^[45]]

Section II
Interests Secured

SPADE v. LYNN & BOSTON R. CO.
Supreme Judicial Court, Massachusetts, May 19, 1897.
Reported in 168 Massachusetts Reports, 285.

Tort, for personal injuries occasioned to the plaintiff by the alleged negligence of the defendant. The declaration contained three counts.

The third count[^[46]] alleged that while the plaintiff was a passenger in the defendant’s car, and in the exercise of due care, “one of the defendant’s agents or servants, in attempting to remove from the said car a certain person claimed and alleged by said defendant’s agent to be noisy, turbulent, and unfit to remain as a passenger in said car, conducted himself with such carelessness, negligence, and with the use of such unnecessary force, that said agent and servant, acting thus negligently, created a disorder, disturbance, and quarrel in said car, and thereby frightened the plaintiff and subjected her to a severe nervous shock, by which nervous shock the plaintiff was physically prostrated and suffered, and has continued to suffer, great mental and physical pain and anguish, and has been put to great expense.”

The defendant’s answer was a general denial.

Trial in the Superior Court, before Mason, C. J.

The plaintiff testified, among other things, that the conductor in putting off an intoxicated man twitched him in such a way as to push another intoxicated man over on to the plaintiff. The evidence for the defendant tended to disprove plaintiff’s claim that either of the intoxicated persons came in contact with her, or assaulted her.

The defendant requested (inter alia) an instruction, that there was no evidence to warrant a verdict on the third count. This request was refused.

The judge instructed the jury as follows:—

“Now there is a third count to which attention must be called. If the jury should find that there was no bodily injury to the plaintiff direct from the acts of the conductor, that is, no person was thrown against the plaintiff, if that statement is not accurate, the plaintiff still contends that if the manner of the removal was such that it occasioned fright and nervous shock that resulted in bodily injury, that she is still entitled to recover for that bodily injury. And I have to say to you as matter of law, that if the wrongful acts of the conductor, on the occasion of removing the disorderly passenger, did occasion fright and nervous shock to the plaintiff, by reason of which she sustained bodily injury, that she can recover compensation for that injury.

“It is settled law in this State that a person cannot recover for mere fright, fear or mental distress occasioned by the negligence of another, which does not result in bodily injury.

“But when the fright or fear or nervous shock produces a bodily injury, then there may be recovery for that bodily injury, and for all the pain, mental or otherwise, which may arise out of that bodily injury. The brain and the nervous system are so closely connected with the mind, are the instruments by which the mind communicates with the body and operates upon it, that we sometimes deal with the nervous conditions as if they were mental conditions, and possibly the testimony has to some extent treated them as one. But for the purpose of the principle which I am now stating, a clear distinction exists between what is mental and what is nervous. The nervous system, the brain and the nerve fibres, are a part of the body, and injury to them is bodily injury. Now if by the wrongful acts of this defendant or its agents, there was a mental shock, fright, and it ended with that, there can be no recovery. But if that mental shock produced a bodily injury, a disturbance of the brain or nervous system which continued and caused subsequent suffering, there may be recovery for that bodily injury and all that follows from it.”

To the above instructions, the defendant excepted.

Verdict for plaintiff.

Allen, J. This case presents a question which has not heretofore been determined in this Commonwealth, and in respect to which the decisions elsewhere have not been uniform. It is this: whether in an action to recover damages for an injury sustained through the negligence of another, there can be a recovery for a bodily injury caused by mere fright and mental disturbance. The jury were instructed that a person cannot recover for mere fright, fear or mental distress occasioned by the negligence of another, which does not result in bodily injury,[^[47]] but that when the fright or fear or nervous shock produces a bodily injury, there may be a recovery for that bodily injury, and for all the pain, mental or otherwise, which may arise out of that bodily injury.

In Canning v. Williamstown, 1 Cush. 451, it was held, in an action against a town to recover damages for an injury sustained by the plaintiff in consequence of a defective bridge, that he could not recover if he sustained no injury to his person, but merely incurred risk and peril which caused fright and mental suffering. In Warren v. Boston & Maine Railroad, 163 Mass. 484, the evidence tended to show that the defendant’s train struck the carriage of the plaintiff, thereby throwing him out upon the ground, and it was held to be a physical injury to the person to be thrown out of a wagon, or to be compelled to jump out, even although the harm consists mainly of nervous shock. It was not therefore a case of mere fright, and resulting nervous shock.

The case calls for a consideration of the real ground upon which the liability or non-liability of a defendant guilty of negligence in a case like the present depends. The exemption from liability for mere fright, terror, alarm, or anxiety does not rest on the assumption that these do not constitute an actual injury. They do in fact deprive one of enjoyment and of comfort, cause real suffering, and to a greater or less extent disqualify one for the time being from doing the duties of life. If these results flow from a wrongful or negligent act, a recovery therefor cannot be denied on the ground that the injury is fanciful and not real. Nor can it be maintained that these results may not be the direct and immediate consequence of the negligence. Danger excites alarm. Few people are wholly insensible to the emotions caused by imminent danger, though some are less affected than others.

It must also be admitted that a timid or sensitive person may suffer not only in mind, but also in body, from such a cause. Great emotion may and sometimes does produce physical effects. The action of the heart, the circulation of the blood, the temperature of the body, as well as the nerves and the appetite, may all be affected. A physical injury may be directly traceable to fright, and so may be caused by it. We cannot say, therefore, that such consequences may not flow proximately from unintentional negligence, and if compensation in damages may be recovered for a physical injury so caused, it is hard on principle to say why there should not also be a recovery for the mere mental suffering when not accompanied by any perceptible physical effects.

It would seem, therefore, that the real reason for refusing damages sustained from mere fright must be something different; and it probably rests on the ground that in practice it is impossible satisfactorily to administer any other rule. The law must be administered in the courts according to general rules. Courts will aim to make these rules as just as possible, bearing in mind that they are to be of general application. But as the law is a practical science, having to do with the affairs of life, any rule is unwise if in its general application it will not as a usual result serve the purposes of justice. A new rule cannot be made for each case, and there must therefore be a certain generality in rules of law, which in particular cases may fail to meet what would be desirable if the single case were alone to be considered.

Rules of law respecting the recovery of damages are framed with reference to the just rights of both parties; not merely what it might be right for an injured person to receive, to afford just compensation for his injury, but also what it is just to compel the other party to pay. One cannot always look to others to make compensation for injuries received. Many accidents occur, the consequences of which the sufferer must bear alone. And in determining the rules of law by which the right to recover compensation for unintended injury from others is to be governed, regard must chiefly be paid to such conditions as are usually found to exist. Not only the transportation of passengers and the running of trains, but the general conduct of business and of the ordinary affairs of life, must be done on the assumption that persons who are liable to be affected thereby are not peculiarly sensitive, and are of ordinary physical and mental strength. If, for example, a traveller is sick or infirm, delicate in health, specially nervous or emotional, liable to be upset by slight causes, and therefore requiring precautions which are not usual or practicable for travellers in general, notice should be given, so that, if reasonably practicable, arrangements may be made accordingly, and extra care be observed.[^[48]] But, as a general rule, a carrier of passengers is not bound to anticipate or to guard against an injurious result which would only happen to a person of peculiar sensitiveness. This limitation of liability for injury of another description is intimated in Allsop v. Allsop, 5 H. & N. 534, 538, 539. One may be held bound to anticipate and guard against the probable consequences to ordinary people, but to carry the rule of damages further imposes an undue measure of responsibility upon those who are guilty only of unintentional negligence. The general rule limiting damages in such a case to the natural and probable consequences of the acts done is of wide application, and has often been expressed and applied. Lombard v. Lennox, 155 Mass. 70; White v. Dresser, 135 Mass. 150; Fillebrown v. Hoar, 124 Mass. 580; Derry v. Flitner, 118 Mass. 131; Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway v. Kellogg, 94 U. S. 469, 475; Wyman v. Leavitt, 71 Maine, 227; Ellis v. Cleveland, 55 Vt. 358; Phillips v. Dickerson, 85 Ill. 11; Hampton v. Jones, 58 Iowa, 317; Renner v. Canfield, 36 Minn. 90; Lynch v. Knight, 9 H. L. Cas. 577, 591, 595, 598; The Notting Hill, 9 P. D. 105; Hobbs v. London & Southwestern Railway, L. R. 10 Q. B. 111, 122.

The law of negligence in its special application to cases of accidents has received great development in recent years. The number of actions brought is very great. This should lead courts well to consider the grounds on which claims for compensation properly rest, and the necessary limitations of the right to recover. We remain satisfied with the rule that there can be no recovery for fright, terror, alarm, anxiety, or distress of mind, if these are unaccompanied by some physical injury; and if this rule is to stand, we think it should also be held that there can be no recovery for such physical injuries as may be caused solely by such mental disturbance, where there is no injury to the person from without. The logical vindication of this rule is, that it is unreasonable to hold persons who are merely negligent bound to anticipate and guard against fright and the consequences of fright; and that this would open a wide door for unjust claims, which could not successfully be met. These views are supported by the following decisions: Victorian Railways Commissioners v. Coultas, 13 App. Cas. 222; Mitchell v. Rochester Railway, 151 N. Y. 107; Ewing v. Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway, 147 Penn. St. 40; Haile v. Texas & Pacific Railway, 60 Fed. Rep. 557.

In the following cases, a different view was taken: Bell v. Great Northern Railway, 26 L. R. (Ir.) 428; Purcell v. St. Paul City Railway, 48 Minn. 134; Fitzpatrick v. Great Western Railway, 12 U. C. Q. B. 645. See also Beven, Negligence, 77 et seq.

It is hardly necessary to add that this decision does not reach those classes of actions where an intention to cause mental distress or to hurt the feelings is shown, or is reasonably to be inferred, as for example, in cases of seduction, slander, malicious prosecution or arrest, and some others. Nor do we include cases of acts done with gross carelessness or recklessness, showing utter indifference to such consequences, when they must have been in the actor’s mind. Lombard v. Lennox, and Fillebrown v. Hoar, already cited. Meagher v. Driscoll, 99 Mass. 281.

In the present case, no such considerations entered into the rulings or were presented by the facts. The entry therefore must be

Exceptions sustained.[^[49]]

DULIEU v. WHITE AND SONS
King’s Bench Division, June 5, 1901.
Reported in [1901] 2 King’s Bench, 669.

Point of law raised by pleadings.[^[50]]

The statement of claim was as follows:—

“1. The plaintiff is the wife of Arthur David Dulieu, who carries on the business of a licensed victualler at the Bonner Arms, Bonner Street, Bethnal Green, in the county of London.

“2. On July 20, 1900, the plaintiff was behind the bar of her husband’s said public-house, she being then pregnant, when the defendants by their servant so negligently drove a pair-horse van as to drive it into the said public-house.

“3. The defendants were also negligent in entrusting the driving of the said horses and van to their said servant, who had no knowledge or skill in driving.

“4. The plaintiff in consequence sustained a severe shock, and was and is seriously ill, and on September 29, 1900, gave premature birth to a child.

“5. In consequence of the shock sustained by the plaintiff the said child was born an idiot.

“The plaintiff claims damages in respect of the aforesaid matters.”

The statement of defence, after denying the allegations contained in the statement of claim proceeded:—

“3. The defendants submit as a matter of law that the damages sought to be recovered herein are too remote, and that the statement of claim on the face thereof discloses no cause of action.”

Cur. adv. vult.

Kennedy, J. In this case the only question for the judgment of the court is in the nature of a demurrer.

The head of damage alleged in paragraph 5 was rightly treated by the plaintiff’s counsel as untenable.

The defendant’s counsel summed up his contention against the legal validity of the plaintiff’s claim in the statement that no action for negligence will lie where there is no immediate physical injury resulting to the plaintiff.

This is an action on the case for negligence—that is to say, for a breach on the part of the defendant’s servant of the duty to use reasonable and proper care and skill in the management of the defendant’s van. In order to succeed, the plaintiff has to prove resulting damage to herself and “a natural and continuous sequence uninterruptedly connecting the breach of duty with the damage as cause and effect.” Shearman and Redfield, Negligence, cited in Beven, Negligence in Law, 2d ed. p. 7. In regard to the existence of the duty here, there can, I think, be no question. The driver of a van and horses in a highway owes a duty to use reasonable and proper care and skill so as not to injure either persons lawfully using the highway, or property adjoining the highway, or persons who, like the plaintiff are lawfully occupying that property. His legal duty towards all appears to me to be practically identical in character and in degree. I understood the plaintiff’s counsel to suggest that there might exist a higher degree of duty towards the plaintiff sitting in a house than would have existed had she been in the street. I am not satisfied that this is so. The wayfarer in the street, as it seems to me, has in law as much right of redress if he is injured in person or in property by the negligence of another as the man who is lawfully sitting on a side-wall or in an adjoining house. “The whole law of negligence assumes the principle of ‘Volenti non fit injuria’ not to be applicable,” for reasons which Sir Frederick Pollock points out (The Law of Torts, by Sir F. Pollock, 6th ed. pp. 166, 167), in a passage which follows the quotation which I have just made. The legal obligations of the driver of horses are the same, I think, towards the man indoors as to the man out of doors; the only question here is whether there is an actionable breach of those obligations if the man in either case is made ill in body by such negligent driving as does not break his ribs but shocks his nerves.

Before proceeding to consider the objections to the maintenance of such a claim as that of the present plaintiff, it is, I think, desirable for clearness’ sake to see exactly what are the facts which ought to be assumed for the purposes of the argument. We must assume in her favor all that can be assumed consistently with the allegations of the statement of claim. We must, therefore, take it as proved that the negligent driving of the defendants’ servant reasonably and naturally caused a nervous or mental shock to the plaintiff by her reasonable apprehension of immediate bodily hurt, and that the premature childbirth, with the physical pain and suffering which accompanied it, was a natural and a direct consequence of the shock. I may just say in passing that I use the words “nervous” and “mental” as interchangeable epithets on the authority of the judgment of the Privy Council in Victorian Railways Commissioners v. Coultas, 13 App. Cas. 222; but I venture to think “nervous” is probably the more correct epithet where terror operates through parts of the physical organism to produce bodily illness as in the present case. The use of the epithet “mental” requires caution, in view of the undoubted rule that merely mental pain unaccompanied by any injury to the person cannot sustain an action of this kind. Beven, Negligence in Law, 2d ed. p. 77.

Now, these being the assumed facts, what are the defendants’ arguments against the plaintiff’s right to recover damages in this action?

First of all, it is argued, fright caused by negligence is not in itself a cause of action—ergo, none of its consequences can give a cause of action. In Mitchell v. Rochester Ry. Co., (1896) 151 N. Y. 107, the point is put thus: “That the result may be nervous disease, blindness, insanity, or even a miscarriage, in no way changes the principle. These results merely show the degree of fright or the extent of the damages. The right of action must still depend upon the question whether a recovery may be had for fright.” With all respect to the learned judges who have so held, I feel a difficulty in following this reasoning. No doubt damage is an essential element in a right of action for negligence. I cannot successfully sue him who has failed in his duty of using reasonable skill and care towards me unless I can prove some material and measurable damage. If his negligence has caused me neither injury to property nor physical mischief, but only an unpleasant emotion of more or less transient duration, an essential constituent of a right of action for negligence is lacking. “Fear,” as Sir Frederick Pollock has stated (The Law of Torts, 6th ed. p. 51), “taken alone falls short of being actual damage not because it is a remote or unlikely consequence, but because it can be proved and measured only by physical effects.” It may, I conceive, be truly said that, viewed in relation to an action for negligence, direct bodily impact is, without resulting damage, as insufficient a ground of legal claim as the infliction of fright. That fright—where physical injury is directly produced by it—cannot be a ground of action merely because of the absence of any accompanying impact appears to me to be a contention both unreasonable and contrary to the weight of authority.

[The learned judge then cited cases in which an action was held to lie, where the only physical impact did not accompany but was a consequence of the fright; also a case where there was nothing in the nature of impact and yet recovery was allowed.]

If impact be not necessary, and if, as must be assumed here, the fear is proved to have naturally and directly produced physical effects, so that the ill results of the negligence which caused the fear are as measurable in damages as the same results would be if they arose from an actual impact, why should not an action for those damages lie just as well as it lies where there has been an actual impact? It is not, however, to be taken that in my view every nervous shock occasioned by negligence and producing physical injury to the sufferer gives a cause of action. There is, I am inclined to think, at least one limitation. The shock, where it operates through the mind, must be a shock which arises from a reasonable fear of immediate personal injury to oneself. A. has, I conceive, no legal duty not to shock B.’s nerves by the exhibition of negligence towards C., or towards the property of B. or C. The limitation was applied by Wright and Bruce, JJ., in the unreported case of Smith v. Johnson & Co., referred to by Wright, J., at the close of his judgment in Wilkinson v. Downton, [1897] 2 Q. B. 57, at p. 61. In Smith v. Johnson & Co. (unreported), a man was killed by the defendant’s negligence in the sight of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff became ill, not from the shock produced by fear of harm to himself, but from the shock of seeing another person killed. The court held that this harm was too remote a consequence of the negligence.[^[51]] I should myself, as I have already indicated, have been inclined to go a step further, and to hold upon the facts in Smith v. Johnson & Co. that, as the defendant neither intended to affect the plaintiff injuriously nor did anything which could reasonably or naturally be expected to affect him injuriously, there was no evidence of any breach of legal duty towards the plaintiff or in regard to him of that absence of care according to the circumstances which Willes, J., in Vaughan v. Taff Vale Ry. Co., (1860) 5 H. & N. 679, at p. 688, gave as a definition of negligence.

In order to illustrate my meaning in the concrete, I say that I should not be prepared in the present case to hold that the plaintiff was entitled to maintain this action if the nervous shock was produced, not by the fear of bodily injury to herself, but by horror or vexation arising from the sight of mischief being threatened or done either to some other person, or to her own or her husband’s property, by the intrusion of the defendants’ van and horses. The cause of the nervous shock is one of the things which the jury will have to determine at the trial.

It remains to consider the second and somewhat different form in which the defendants’ counsel put his objection to the right of the plaintiff to maintain this action. He contended that the damages are too remote, and relied much upon the decision of the Privy Council in Victorian Railways Commissioners v. Coultas, 13 App. Cas. 222.

The principal ground of their judgment is formulated in the following sentence: “Damages arising from mere sudden terror unaccompanied by any actual physical injury, but occasioning a nervous or mental shock, cannot under such circumstances, their Lordships think, be considered a consequence which, in the ordinary course of things, would flow from the negligence of the gate-keeper.”

Why is the accompaniment of physical injury essential? For my own part, I should not like to assume it to be scientifically true that a nervous shock which causes serious bodily illness is not actually accompanied by physical injury, although it may be impossible, or at least difficult, to detect the injury at the time in the living subject. I should not be surprised if the surgeon or the physiologist told us that nervous shock is or may be in itself an injurious affection of the physical organism. Let it be assumed, however, that the physical injury follows the shock, but that the jury are satisfied upon proper and sufficient medical evidence that it follows the shock as its direct and natural effect, is there any legal reason for saying that the damage is less proximate in the legal sense than damage which arises contemporaneously? “As well might it be said” (I am quoting from the judgment of Palles, C. B., 26 L. R. Ir. at p. 439) “that a death caused by poison is not to be attributed to the person who administered it because the mortal effect is not produced contemporaneously with its administration.” Remoteness as a legal ground for the exclusion of damage in an action of tort means, not severance in point of time, but the absence of direct and natural causal sequence—the inability to trace in regard to the damage the “propter hoc” in a necessary or natural descent from the wrongful act. As a matter of experience, I should say that the injury to health which forms the main ground of damages in actions of negligence, either in cases of railway accidents or in running-down cases, frequently is proved, not as a concomitant of the occurrence, but as one of the sequelæ.