Related topics

Last updated: 06-Oct-2014

Smith v Brown [1871] 40 LJQB 214, per Cocburn CJ at p.218:

The question is whether a personal injury occasioned by the collision of two vessels comes under the term 'damage' as used in the 7th section. Now the words used are undoubtedly very extensive, but it is to be observed that neither in common parlance nor in legal phraseology is the word 'damage' used as applicable to injuries done to the person, but solely as applicable to mischief done to property. Still less is this term applicable to loss of life or injury resulting therefrom, to a widow or surviving relative. We speak indeed of 'damages' as compensation for injury done to the person, but the term 'damages' is not employed interchangeably with the term 'injury,' with reference to mischief wrongfully occasioned to the person.

[T]his distinction is not a matter of mere verbal criticism, but is of a substantial character and necessary to be attended to

Leave your comments

Form by