WHERE PURSUER DIES AFTER RAISING AN ACTION. 219 



returned, and on a motion for a new trial on tlie ground of 

 excessive damage, Lord President Inglis said : — " It was 

 contended upon the part of the defenders that the whole 

 damage which the pursuer could possibly demand or receive 

 in such an action, as executor of the injured person, was the 

 loss actually sustained — the pecuniary loss actually sustained 

 — by the deceased, and a sum by way of solatium for the 

 suffering which he endured during his survivance. Now, 

 I am not satisfied that that is necessarily the limit of the 

 damag^e. ... If it had been foreseen that the man was to 

 die very shortly after the occurrence of the injury, or very 

 shortly after the time when the trial was to take place, there 

 may be a question whether he would not have been entitled 

 to damages for the shortening his life. And so it may be a 

 question whether his executor, as now representing him, is 

 not entitled to damages for that very same thing, it being 

 now ascertained beyond all dispute that his life was shortened 

 in consequence of the injury." The Court refused to disturb 

 the verdict; (a) stating that the jury properly had all the 

 circumstances before them, and that their verdict, though 

 large, was not so large as to call for judicial interference. 

 Other elements to be taken mto account are the worldly 

 cu-cumstances of the pursuer ; and also the degree of fault 

 which caused the injury. " When a party receives a severe 

 personal injury, in consequence of an accident to a coach or 

 other public conveyance, ought he not to receive a greater 

 compensation when the accident is caused by gross mis- 

 conduct than when the conveyance is well regulated, and 

 there has been proper care and attention, and the accident is 

 of a nature which almost no possible precaution could have 

 averted ? And in like manner, is not larger solatium to be 

 given when the life of a parent is lost through gross and 

 reckless misconduct ? " (6) and, accordingly, it has been 



(a) M'Mastcr v. Cal. Ry. Co., 1885, 13 R. 252. 



(6) Lord Justice-Clerk Hope in Morton v. Ed. <£• Glas. Rij. Co., 1845, 8 D. 288, 

 294. 



