I. Of person. § 1. Generally. 2. Causing miscarriage. § 3. Causing fall resulting in injury. § 4. Fright caused by wilful or wanton act or trespass. II. Of animal. § 5. Generally. I. Of person. § 1. Generally. Punitive damages for causing, see DAM- Right of passenger to recover damages for, Damage for mental anguish, see DAMAGES, I. Of person. Judicial notice of effects of, see EVIDENCE, | result of a legal wrong against the plaintiff §§ 58 a, 68 a, b. Acts and declarations of third person to show, see EVIDENCE, § 1043 e. Relevancy of evidence as to, see EVIDENCE, § 1273 a, b. Liability for manslaughter of one causing death by, see HOMICIDE, §§ 23 c, 25 e. Necessity of allegations as to, to warrant recovery of damages for, see PLEADING, § 251. Proximate cause of injury by, see PROXIMATE CAUSE, § 95. Instructions as to right to recover for injury caused by, see TRIAL, § 356 a. Recovery for death from fright caused by blasting, see DEATH, § 39 c. a. There is no duty in law to protect a person from fright. Ewing v. Pittsburgh, C. C. & St. L. R. Co. 14 L.R.A. 666, 147 Pa. 40, 23 Atl. 340. b. Mere fright or terror which superin duces nervous shock cannot be made the basis of a liability for damages. Braun v. Craven, 42 L.R.A. 199, 175 ill. 401, 51 N. E. 657. c. There can in general be no recovery for fright or mental anguish unless it results in, or is accompanied by, bodily injury. Ewing v. Pittsburgh, C. C. & St. L. R. Co. 14 L.R.A. 666, 147 Pa. 40, 23 Atl. 340 (Annotated); Mitchell v. Rochester R. Co. 34 L.R.A. 781, 151 N. Y. 107, 45 N. E. 354; Huston v. Freemansburg, 3 L.R.A. (N.S.) 49, 212 Pa. 548, 61 Atl. 1022; Corcoran v. Postal Teleg. Cable Co. L.R.A. 1915B, 552, 80 Wash. 570, 142 Pac. 29; Whitsel v. Watts, L.R.A.1917A, 708, 98 Kan. 508, 159 Pac. 401. d. No liability exists for acts of negligence causing mere fright or shock, if such acts were neither wilful nor malicious. Cincinnati Northern Traction Co. v. Rosnagle, 35 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1030, 84 Ohio St. 310, 95 N. E. 884. e. No recovery can be had for injuries resulting from mere fright caused by the negligence of another, when no immediate personal injury is received. Reed v. Ford, 19 L.R.A. (N.S.) 225, 129 Ky. 471, 112 S. W. 600. f. No liability exists for acts of negligence causing mere fright or shock, unaccompanied by contemporaneous physical injury, even though subsequent illness results, where the negligent acts complained of are neither wilful nor malicious. Miller v. Baltimore & O. S. W. R. Co. 18 L.R.A. (N.S.) 949, 78 Ohio St. 309, 85 N. E. 499. g. No recovery can be had for sickness due to the purely internal operation of fright caused by a negligent act, even if the negligence was gross and the party in fault ought to have known that the result would follow his act. Smith v. Postal Teleg. Cable Co. 47 L.R.A. 323, 174 Mass. 576, 55 N. E. 380. h. There can be no recovery for fright which results in physical injuries, in the absence of contemporaneous injury to the plaintiff, unless the fright is the proximate by the defendant. Sanderson v. Northern P. R. Co. 60 L.R.A. 403, 88 Minn. 162, 92 N. W. 542. i. No recovery for fright, terror, alarm, anxiety, or distress of mind, even if these result in physical injury, can be had in an action for negligence where there are no physical injuries except those caused solely by the mental disturbance. Spade v. Lynn & B. R. Co. 38 L.R.A. 512, 168 Mass. 285, 47 N. E. 88. j. Loud and angry words spoken, with a waving of his arms, by a landlord, who suddenly appears at the open door of a bedroom where a woman is packing goods, and forbids her to move, and threatens to call the constable, do not constitute negligence which can make him liable for her resulting excitement and fright, which produce chorea or St. Vitus' Dance. Braun v. Craven, 42 L.R.A. 199, 175 Ill. 401, 51 N. E. 657. k. No damages can be recovered by a bystander for temporary blindness and terrible fright and nervous shock due to negligence in causing an iron brace to come in contact with a trolley wire, so as to cause a powerful electric flash of an explosive Chittick nature. v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co. 22 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1073, 224 Pa. 13, 73 Atl. 4. (Annotated) 1. There can be a recovery for personal injuries which are the natural and proximate result of fright caused by negligence if there is no intervening cause. phia, B. & W. R. Co. v. Mitchell, 17 L.R.A. (N.S.) 974, 107 Md. 600, 69 Atl. 422. Philadel m. Bodily pain and suffering resulting from fright is a proper element of damage, though no physical violence is done the person of the plaintiff, provided, of course, the injury is the proximate result of the negligent act, or is the natural and probable L.R.A.1916E, 743, 90 Wash. 557, 156 Pac. consequence thereof. O'Meara v. Russell, 550. n. It is not necessary to constitute a physical impact, in the case of an injury through fright that the person of the inB. & W. R. Co. v. Mitchell, 17 L.R.A. (Ñ.S.) dividual injured be struck. Philadelphia, 974, 107 Md. 600, 69 Atl. 422. o. Impairment of health, or loss of bodily power, through fright which is the natural and direct result of the negligent act of another, is sufficient to sustain an action against the wrongdoer. Kimberly v. Howland, 7 L.R.A. (N.S.) 545, 145 N. C. 398, 55 S. E. 778. I. Of person. and those in turn to physical troubles. | fendant should have known that such acts Simone v. Rhode Island Co. 9 L.R.A. (N.S.) 740, 28 R. I. 186, 66 Atl. 202. r. Damages may be recovered for actual physical injuries resulting from fright and nervous shock caused by wrongful blasting, although there is no direct physical impact against the body of the person injured. Green v. Shoemaker, 23 L.R.A. (N.S.) 667, 111 Md. 69, 73 Atl. 688. 1022. would, with reasonable certainty, cause such result, or the negligence was gross, showing utter indifference to the consequences which should have been contemplated by him. Watkins v. Kaolin Mfg. Co. 60 L.R.A. 617, 131 N. C. 536, 42 S. E. 983. § 2. Causing miscarriage. a. Miscarriage following fright or shock caused by negligence will entitle the one who suffers it to maintain an action against the one guilty of the negligence, although there was no physical contact with the person. Pankopf v. Hinkley, 24 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1159, 141 Wis. 146, 123 N. W. 625. b. One who causes nervous excitement in s. No recovery can be had for frightning a man ill in bed, by the explosion of dynamite in front of his house, so that he died within two weeks thereafter, from the shock and attending exertion in aiding his wife, who was also ill. Huston v. Freemansburg, 3 L.R.A. (N.S.) 49, 212 Pa. 548, 61 Atl. a pregnant woman by his wrongful tres(Annotated) pass upon her home to such an extent as to t. One negligently hurling a stump by cause her miscarriage is liable to her for blasting against another's house is liable the bodily pain and suffering endured in for physical injuries suffered by its occu- direct line of causation from the wrongful pant in attempting to escape from the dan-act, although no physical violence is done to ger, which, through fright, he believes to be imminent. O'Meara V. Russell, L.R.A. 1916E, 743, 90 Wash. 557, 156 Pac. 550. u. A street railway company is liable, irrespective of the question of its negligence, for injuries inflicted upon a property owner through shock by a car which leaves its track and runs against his dwelling, a portion of which it demolishes. Kentucky Traction & Terminal Co. v. Bain, L.R.A. 1917D, 813, 174 Ky. 679, 192 S. W. 656. (Annotated) v. One having a right to enter upon another's property to remove telegraph poles is liable for injury to the wife of the one in possession thereof, frightened because of the loud, profane, boisterous, and lewd language employed by his servants upon the premises and towards her while in the execution of the work, and their entry of the dwelling without right. May v. Western U. Teleg. Co. 37 L.R.A. (N.S.) 912, 157 N. C. 416, 72 S. E. 1059. w. That the extent of the injury sus tained by one whose wagon was negligently collided with by that of another person, and which consists of an impairment of nervous power, and weakness and suffering due to the fright and shock received, is indeterminate and was impossible of anticipation, is not a bar to a recovery of compensation by the injured party for the actual pecuniary loss caused by the act of the negligent party. Armour v. Kollmeyer, 16 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1110, 161 Fed. 78, 88 C. C. A. 242. x. A physical injury resulting from a fright or other mental shock caused by the wrongful act or omission of another entitles the injured party to recover his damages, provided the act or omission is the proximate cause of the injury, and the injury ought, in the light of all circumstances, to have been foreseen as a natural or probable consequence thereof. Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Hayter, 47 L.R.A. 325, 93 Tex, 239, 54 S. W. 944. y. An action will lie for physical injury or disease resulting from fright or nervous shock caused by negligent acts, when de her person. Engle v. Simmons, 7 L.R.A. (N.S.) 96, 148 Ala. 92, 41 So. 1023. c. The assault by an intoxicated person upon, and his use of abusive language toward, another in a house where he is not shown to be a trespasser, gives no right of action against him to a pregnant woman in the house, not related to the person assaulted, who is out of sight although within hearing of the assault, and whose presence is not known to the assailant, for injuries resulting to her from fright causing mental pain and agony, illness, threatened miscarriage, and possibly permanent impairment of health, since, not knowing of her presence, the assailant cannot reasonably have anticipated injury to her from his conduct. Reed v. Ford, 19 L.R.A. (N.S.) 225, 129 Ky. 471, 112 S. W. 600. d. No recovery can be had for a miscarriage resulting from fright caused by the negligence of another. Mitchell v. Rochester R. Co. 34 L.R.A. 781, 151 N. Y. 107, 45 N. E. 354. e. A miscarriage and serious impairment of the health of a woman occupying leased premises, caused by fright produced by a boisterous and violent assault upon some negroes on the premises and in her presence, by the landlord, who knew her pregnant condition, gives a cause of action against him. Hill v. Kimbell, 7 L.R.A. 618, 76 Tex. 210, 13 S. W. 59. (Annotated) f. A recovery may be had for a miscarriage naturally and proximately resulting from extreme fright due to a wilful wrong or an act so grossly negligent as to show utter indifference to consequences. Whitsel v. Watts, L.R.A.1917A, 708, 98 Kan. 508, 159 Pac. 401. g. The fright of a woman, resulting in miscarriage, due to being thrown from the seat of the carriage in which she was riding, and her child being thrown out of the carriage by collison with an automobile, may be considered in awarding damages against the one responsible for the collision. Easton v. United Trade School C. I. Of person. Co. L.R.A.1917A, 394, 173 Cal. 199, 159 | Contributory negligence on part of driver Pac. 597. § 3. Causing fall resulting in injury. a. The rule disallowing damages for fright does not apply where physical injuries are caused by a fall consequent upon a faint caused by an explosion due to another's negligence. Conley v. United Drug Co. L.R.A.1915D, 830, 218 Mass. 238, 105 (Annotated) N. E. 975. of animal frightened by automobile, see By blasting, see BLASTING, §§ 6, 9. Of horses, judicial notice as to, see EVI- Burden of showing proximate cause of in- Of b. One who negligently explodes a heavy blast in close proximity to and casts débris upon a dwelling occupied by a woman, when he could have foreseen that some injury Of was likely to happen to the inmates of the house from his act, is liable for a physical Opinion evidence as to fright of horse, see injury inflicted upon the woman in falling as a result of a swoon from fright at the explosion. Salmi v. Columbia & N. River R. Co. L.R.A.1915D, 834, 75 Or. 200, 146 Pac. 819. § 4. Fright caused by wilful or wanton act or trespass. See also ante, § 2 b. a. The general rule that no recovery is permitted for mere fright does not include cases of wanton wrongs nor apply to acts of trespassers. Jeppsen v. Jensen, L.R.A. 1916D, 614, 47 Utah, 536, 155 Pac. 429. b. Damages may be recovered for injuries from fright due to the defendant's wilful, wanton, and malicious acts in using abusive language to plaintiff's husband in her presence, and threatening to kill him with a weapon which defendant pointed at him. Jeppsen v. Jensen, L.R.A.1916D, 614, 47 Utah, 536, 155 Pac. 429. cause Of Of On EVIDENCE, § 919 a. horses, relevancy of evidence as to, see EVIDENCE, § 1270. horses, evidence of fright on other occa sions, see EVIDENCE, § 1321. defective highway, see HIGHWAYS, $$ Running away of horses, see HORSES. Running of limitations against action for Of Who is employer of driver of frightened Sufficiency of pleading in action for causing, c. One frightening a woman So as to nervous prostration, by stealthily Of entering her home in the nighttime and committing a trespass on her husband's property, is liable to her in damages therefor. Watson v. Dilts, 57 L.R.A. 559, 116 Iowa, 249, 89 N. W. 1068. d. No legal distinction in cases of injury resulting from fright or terror, from the standpoint of civil redress, exists between making an assault upon a woman and making one in her presence upon her husband. Jeppsen v. Jensen, L.R.A.1916D, 614, 47 Utah, 536, 155 Pac. 429. e. The court cannot say as matter of law that the acts of one in using abusive language to another and pointing a weapon at him with a threat to kill were not wilful and wanton within the rule permitting recovery for injuries resulting from fright caused by such acts. Jeppsen v. Jensen, L.R.A.1916D, 614, 47 Utah, 536, 155 Pac. 429. 11. Of animal. § 5. Generally. horse, proximate cause of injury, see PROXIMATE CAUSE, §§ 70, 96. railroad train, see RAILROADS, §§ 145 151. By Of horse, by street car, see STREET RAILWAYS, $$ 49 t, 67. Contributory negligence of owner of, or person injured by frightened horse by street car, see STREET RAILWAYS, $$ 81, 85 a, 89 c, d. Instruction in action for injury by horse frightened by street car, see TRIAL, § 318 m. Of horse, sufficiency of finding as to cause of, see TRIAL, § 495 c. a. The rule that redress for nervous shocks and frights is not permitted applies to animals. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Gelvin, L.R.A.1917C, 983, 238 Fed. 14, 151 C. C. A. 90. b. One frightening cattle by negligently setting fire to the pasture where they are kept, so that they stampede and become see overheated, is not liable for their consequent To whom liable for fright of horses, failure to develop as they otherwise would As-have done, so that they are light in weight when they are sent to market. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Gelvin, L.R.A.1917C, 983, 238 Fed. 14, 151 C. C. A. 90. (Annotated) |