328 



How limited. 



Cannot be 

 given for 

 funeral ex- 

 penses. 



Damages not 

 given to a 

 class but to 

 individuals. 



NEGLIGENCE IN THE USE OF HOESES, ETC. 



Such an action cannot be maintained without some evi- 

 dence of actual pecuniary damage («/), or the loss of the 

 reasonable probability of pecuniary benefit from the con- 

 tinuance of the life of the deceased (z). 



The expectation of life of the deceased is an element 

 to be considered by the jury in assessing damages («). 

 But the jury are to give a fair compensation, and not to 

 treat the damages on the footing of the value of an 

 annuity {b). 



Where the widow of the deceased is the plaintiff, and 

 her husband has made provision for her by a policy on his 

 own life in her favour, the amount of such poHcy is not to 

 be deducted from the amount of damages previously 

 assessed irrespective of such consideration ; as she is 

 benefited only by the accelerated receipt of the amount of 

 the policy, and that benefit being represented by the 

 interest of the money during the period of acceleration, may 

 be compensated by deducting premiums from the estimated 

 future earnings of the deceased (c). 



No damages can be given for funeral expenses or 

 mourning. For the subject matter of the statute is com- 

 pensation for injury by reason of a relative not being alive, 

 and there is no language in the statute referring to the 

 cost of the ceremonial of respect paid to the memory of the 

 deceased in his funeral, or in putting on mourning for his 

 loss {d). 



The remedy given by Lord Campbell's Act(e) is not 

 given to a class but to individuals ; and, therefore, on the 

 death of a person, whose income aiose from land and per- 

 sonalty independent of any exertion of his own, although 

 no portion of it was lost to his family, as a tchole, by his 

 death, the action is maintainable, if, in consequence of that 

 death, the mode of its distribution is changed to the detri- 

 ment of some of the members of the family, though to the 

 advantage of others (/). 



(y) Dtichforth v. Johnson, 4 H. & 

 N. 653. 



(z) Pi/m V. Great Northern Sail. 

 Co., 4 B. & S. 396. 



(a) Mowleji v. London and North 

 Western Rail. Co., L. E., 8Ex. 221; 

 42 L. J., Ex. 153— Ex. Ch. 



(b) Armsicorth v. South Eastern 

 Rail. Co., 11 Jur. 758 ; Surrey Sum- 

 mer Assizes, 1847, cor. Parke, B., 

 cited L. E., 8 Ex. 230. 



(e) Grand Trunk Rail. Co. of 

 Canada v. Jennings, 13 App. Cas. 

 800 ; 58 L. J., P. C. 1 ; 59 L. T., 

 K. S. 679 ; 37 W. E. 430, approv- 

 ing Sicks \. Nen-port, ^-c. Rail. Co., 

 4 B. & S. 403, u. 



[d] Dalton v. South Eastern Rail. 

 Co., -27 L. J., C. P. 227. 



(e) 9 & 10 Vict. c. 93. 



(/) Fi/m V. Great Northern Rail. 

 Co., 4 B. & S. 396. 



