T. & P. R'y Co. v. Curry

Citations

• 64 Tex. 85

Syllabus

<p>1. Damages — Allegations—Implied damages.— The general allegation, of damages will suffice to let in proof, and to warrant recovery of all such damages as naturally and necessarily result from the wrongful act complained of; the law implies such damages. But where damages do not necessarily result from the act complained of, and consequently are not implied by law, the plaintiff must state in his petition the particular damage sustained, in order to introduce testimony in regard to it; this rule is to avoid surprise.</p> <p>3. Same.— But when, as in this case, severe injuries to the person are shown to have existed, the law infers that physical pain resulted therefrom, since the adverse party is presumed to know the ordinary operation of natural laws.</p> <p>3. Same.— The same is true as to mental suffering, for it is contrary to experience and the laws of nature that an ordinary person should sustain great bodily inj'ury without mental pain resulting therefrom.</p> <p>4. Evidence — Practice.—Where there was a failure to use due diligence to offer evidence at the proper time, it was not error to refuse to admit it during the argument of the case.</p> <p>6. Evidence. — No proof is required to be made of those things which every person is presumed to know; and since it is not required that proof be made of a fact necessarily resulting from facts proved, it follows that it is not necessary to allege the resulting fact. Following Phillips v. Hoyle, 4 Gray, 571; Folsom v. Town of Underhill, 36 Vt., 592; I. & St. L. R’y Co. v. Stables, 67 Ill., 320; Chicago, B. & O. R’y Co. v. Warner, 18 Am. & Eng. R’y Cases, 108.</p>