Summary

John Archibald Campbell Wade v. Leroy — Opinion of the Court

If a person loses an eye, an ear, a limb, or his general health, the law implies damage, the same as if deprived of his property or any other legal right. Words actionable in themselves imply damage, and none need be proved; but if actionable only by reason of some consequence which might or might not follow, then the particular damage must be averred and proved. The loss of hearing, of memory, and understanding, imply injury, and necessarily and naturally result therefrom, and no particular damage need be averred or proved.
Source: Wikisource

John Archibald Campbell Wade v. Leroy — Opinion of the Court

When a party loses a leg or arm, in estimating his real loss, we look to his probable future under the state of his injury, to form an opinion of the demages he has sustained. If the injury is temporary, the damages will be far less than if lasting and permanent. A flesh wound will soon heal, but a lost limb cannot be restored; both should, however, be considered in estimating the damages sustained-the loss of a limb will be continually felt as long as the party losing shall live, and hence a young person will sustain a greater injury than one whose life is nearly ended.
Source: Wikisource

John Archibald Campbell Wade v. Leroy — Opinion of the Court

Aside from the pecuniary consequences resulting from such an injury, his life must be one both monotonous and irksome, and almost wholly destitute of those pleasures and that happiness which those in full health, bodily and mentally, must ever enjoy.
FOURTH.-When the action can be maintained without specifying any particular damage, it is not necessary to aver any particular instance of damage.
When the law implies damage, there can be no reason for stating it with particularity.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature