This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1913 Excerpt: ...at the usual interest, would produce the equivalent of the damage, when that will occur.37 Nichols v. Braboson, 94 Wis. certain' to ensue, is incorrect. Cer549; Gainard v. Rochester, etc. Ry. tainty means the absence of doubt, Co., 50 Hun (N. Y.) 22; Filer v. and the proposition means that the New York, etc. Ry. Co., ...
Read More
This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1913 Excerpt: ...at the usual interest, would produce the equivalent of the damage, when that will occur.37 Nichols v. Braboson, 94 Wis. certain' to ensue, is incorrect. Cer549; Gainard v. Rochester, etc. Ry. tainty means the absence of doubt, Co., 50 Hun (N. Y.) 22; Filer v. and the proposition means that the New York, etc. Ry. Co., 49 N. Y. 42; jury should be satisfied of their ocNiendorff v. Manhattan, etc. Ry. Co., currence beyond a reasonable doubt. 4 N. Y. App. Div. 46; Marvin v. We think the evidence should show Manhattan Ry. Co., 53 N. Y. Supr. that there is a reasonable probability Ct. 527; Watson on Damages for of the occurrence of future ill effects Personal Injuries, 383. See Suth-of the injury, and that it need show ertand on Damages, 121-3. Judge no more in order to justify the jury Thompson treats the terms as con-in considering future consequences in vertible (Thompson on Negligence, estimating the damages" (Gulf, etc. 7205. Ry. Co. v. Harriett, 80 Tex. 73, 15 ""So much of the instruction as S. W. 556 (1891); Lentz v. City of lays down the proposition that in Dallas, 06 Tex. 258, 72 S. W. 59 order to recover for future conse-(1903). In some cases instructions quences they must be 'reasonably using the language "likely" to suf "Where future payments for the their present worth (Goodhart v. loss of earning power are to be an-Pennsylvania R. Co.. 177 Pa. St. 1, ticipated and capitalized in a ver-35 Atl. 191; Kinney v. Tolkerts, 84 diet, the plaintiff is entitled only to Mich. 616, 48 N. W. 283). 744. Loss of profits.--The current of the earlier decisions upon the subject appears to be opposed to any allowance for the plaintiff's loss of profits in cases of direct injury to person or property, though plainly res...
Read Less
