KFLCC Kingdom Law 2nd Ed.

315

DAMAGES

DAMNI INJURIA ACTIO

v. Terwilliger, 116 N. T. 530, 22 N. E. 1091; Springer v. Fuel Co., 196 Pa. St. 156, 46 Atl. 370; Scott v. Donald, 165 U. S. 58, 17 Sup. et. 265, 41 L, Ed. 632; Gillinghain v. Railroad Co., 35 W. Va. 588, 14 S. E 243, 14 L. R. A. 798, 29 Am. St. Rep. 827; Boydan v. Habers tumpf, 129 Mich. 137, 88 N. W. 386; Oliver v. Railroad Co., 65 S. C. 1, 43 S. B. 307; Murphy v. Hobbs, 7 Colo. 541, 5 Pac. 119, 49 Am. Rep. 366. Proximate and remote. Proximate dam ages are the immediate and direct damages and natural results of the act complained of, and such as are usual and might have been expect ed. Remote damages are those attributable im mediately to an intervening cause, though it forms a link in an unbroken chain of causation, so that the remote damage would not have oc curred if its elements had not been set in mo tion by the original act or event. Henry v. Railroad Co., 50 Cal. 183; Kuhn v. Jewett, 32 N. J. En. 649; Pielke v. Railroad Co., 5 Dak. 444, 41 N. W. 669. The terms "remote dam ages" and "consequential damages" are not syn onymous nor to be used interchangeably; all remote damage is consequential, but it is by no means true that all consequential damage is remote. Eaton v. Railroad Co., 51 N. H. 511, 12 Am. Rep. 147. Other componnd and descriptive terms. —Actual damages are real, substantial and just damages, or the amount awarded to a complainant in compensation for his actual and real loss or injury, as opposed on the one hand to "nominal" damages, and on the other to "ex emplary" or "punitive" damages. Ross v. Leg gett, 61 Mich. 445. 28 N. W. 695, 1 Am. St Rep. 608; Lord v. Wood, 120 Iowa, 303, 94 N. W. 842; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Law son, 66 Kan. 660, 72 Pac. 283; Field v. Mun ster, 11 Tex. Civ. App. 341, 32 S. W. 417; Oliver v. Columbia, etc., R. Go., 65 S. C. 1, 43 S. EL 307; Gatzow v. Buening, 106 Wis. 1, 81 N. W. 1003, 49 L. R. A. 475, 80 Am. St. Rep 1; Osborn v. Leach, 135 N. C. 628 47 S. E. 811, 66 L. R. A. 648; Gen. St. Minn. 1894, § 5418.— Affirmative damages. In ad miralty law, affirmative damages are damages which a respondent in a libel for injuries to a vessel may recover, which may be in excess of any amount which the libellant would be en titled to claim. Ebert v. The Reuben Doud (D. G) 3 Fed. 520— Civil damages. Those awarded against a liquor-seller to the relative, guardian, or employer of the person to whom the sales were made, on a showing that the plaintiff has been thereby injured in person, g roperty, or means of support. Headington v. mith, 113 Iowa, 107, 84 N. W. 982.— Contin gent damages. Where a demurrer has been filed to one or more counts in a declaration, and its consideration is postponed, and meanwhile other counts in the same declaration, not de murred to, are taken as issues, and tried, and damages awarded upon them, such damages are called "contingent damages."— Continuing damages are such as accrue from the same injury, or from the repetition of similar acts, between two specified periods of time.— Double damages. Twice the amount of actual dam ages as found by the verdict of a jury allowed by statute in some cases of injuries by negli f ence, fraud, or trespass. Cross v. United tates. 6 Fed. Cas. 892; Daniel v. Vaccaro, 41 Ark. 329.— Excessive damages. Damages awarded by a jury which are grossly in excess of the amount warranted by law on the facts and circumstances of the case; unreasonable or outrageous damages. A verdict giving exces sive damages is ground for a new trial. Tay lor v. Giger, Hardin (Ky.) 587; Harvesting Mach. 'Co. v. Gray, 314 Ind. 340, 16 N. E. 787. — Fee damages. Damages sustained by and awarded to an abutting owner of real property occasioned by the construction and operation of an elevated railroad in a city street, are so

called, because compensation is made to the owner for the injury to, or deprivation of, his easements of light, air, and access, and these are parts of the fee. Dode v. Railway Co., 70 Hun, 374, 24 N. Y. Stipp. 422; People v. Bar ker, 165 N. Y. 305, 59 N. E. 151.— Inadequate damages. Damages are called "inadequate," within the rule that an injunction will not be granted where adequate damages at law could be recovered for the injury sought to be pre vented, when such a recovery at law would not compensate the parties and place them in the position in which they formerly stood. In surance Co. v. Bonner, 7 Colo. App. 97, 42 Pac. 681.— Imaginary damages. This term is sometimes used as equivalent to "exemplary," "vindictive," or "punitive" damages. Murphy v. Hobbs, 7 Colo. 541, 5 Pac. 119, 49 Am. Rep. 366.— Intervening damages. Such damages to an appellee as result from the delay caused by the appeal. McGregor v. Balch, 17 Vt. 568; Peasely v. Buckminster, 1 Tyler (Vt.) 267; Roberts v. Warner, 17 Vt. 46, 42 Am. Dec. 478. —Land damages. A term sometimes applied to the amount of compensation to b,e paid for land taken under the power of eminent domain or for injury to, or depreciation of, land ad joining that taken. People v. Hilts, 27 Misc. Rep. 290, 58 N. Y. Supp. 434; In re Lent, 47 App. Div. 349, 62 N. Y. Supp. 227.— Necessary damages. A term said to be of much wider scope in the law of damages than "pecuniary." It embraces all those consequences of an injury usually denominated "general" damages, as dis tinguished from special damages; whereas the phrase "pecuniary damages" covers a smaller class of damages within the larger class of "general" damages. Browning v. Wabash Wes tern R. Oo. (Mo.) 24 S. W. 746.— Pecuniary damages. Such as can be estimated in and compensated by money; not merely the loss of money or salable property or rights, but all such loss, deprivation, or injury as can be made the subject of calculation and of recompense in money. Walker v. McNeill, 17 Wash 582, 50 Pac. 518; Searle v. Railroad Co., 32 W. Va. 370, 9 S. E. 248; Mclntyre v. Railroad Co., 37 N. Y. 295; Davidson Benedict Co. v. Severson, 109 Tenn. 572, 72 S. W. 967.— Pre sumptive damages. A term occasionally used as the equivalent of "exemplary" or "pun itive" damages. Murphy v. Hobbs, 7 Colo. 541, 5 Pac. 119, 49 Am. Rep. 366.— Prospec tive damages. Damages which are expected to follow from the act or state of facts made the basis of a plaintiffs suit; damages which, have not yet accrued, at the time of the trial, but which, in the nature of things, must neces sarily, or most probably, result from the acts or facts complained of.— Speculative dam ages. Prospective or anticipated damages from the same acts or facts constituting the present cause of action, but which depend upon future developments which are contingent, conjectural, or improbable.— Damages ultra. Additional damages claimed by a plaintiff not satisfied with those paid into court by the defendant. In old English law. Causing damage or loss, as distinguished from torcenouse, wrongful. Britt. c. 61. DAME. In English law. The legal des ignation of the wife of a knight or baronet. DAMNA. Damages, both inclusive and exclusive of costs. DAMNATUS. In old English law. Con demned ; prohibited by law ; unlawful. Dam natus coitus, an unlawful connection. DAMNI INJURIA ACTIO. An action given by the civil law for the damage done DAMAIOUSE.