Fitter against Veal
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1796 |
| Date | 01 January 1796 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 88 E.R. 1506
COURTS OF KING'S BENCH, CHANCERY, COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER
case 908. fitter against veal. If, after recovering damages in an action of assault, battery, and wounding, the plaintiff is put to great expence, in consequence of the injury he received, yet he cannot bring a second action to recover further compensation for the consequential damage he sustains; for it shall be intended that the jury considered all possible consequences on the trial of the first action.-S. C. 1 Salk. 11. S. C. 1 Ld. Bay. 339, 692. S. C. Holt, 12. It was a special action of trespass, in which the plaintiff declared of a battery and wounding of him at such a time, for which he brought trespass, and recovered damages for the beating and wounding; but that since that time, by reason of the wounding, he was fain to be trepanned, and have a bone taken out of his skull, so that he thereby became maimed ; and the former recovery being pleaded in bar, The question was, if this action did now lie? Sir B. Shower urged that it did, for that nothing was recovered for the maim before, for it was not known or in being at the time of the former recovery; and the question is, whether an action will not lie for a consequential damage that happens to one from the wrong of another, subsequently to a recovery for the original wrong ?' , And surely it is [543] hard it should not; for the wrong done by the stranger, and the damages arising thereby to me, are the ground of the action. And if a man does in time subsequent suffer by the wrongful act of a stranger, he ought to have remedy for it; and we are here sufferers by this battery in a new and higher degree, and this-since the recovery; therefore we have received no satisfaction for it, because the jury could not have it under their consideration, being not then discovered. If this one- II MOD. Ml TRINITY TERM, 13 WILL. 3. IN B. R. 1507 act bad been to the damage of two, both of them should recover reparation with respect to their several damages, though it be but one entire act. Ergo, If one act of mine will prejudice another twice, or in several degrees, there ought to be several reparations, more especially when one of the species or degrees of the damage is not known till after a recovery for the other; and after recovery for this trespass, if the plaintiff had died within the year, the defendant would be punishable by indictment at suit of the King, or on appeal at suit of his wife...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cartledge v E. Jopling & Sons Ltd
...141), only one action may be brought in respect of all the damage from personal injury. 35In 1701 in the case of ( Fitter v. Veal 12 Mod. 542 and 1 Lord Raymond 339, 692; 1 Salkeld 11) the plaintiff after recovering damages for an assault and battery discovered that his injuries were more ......
-
Wigmans v AMP Ltd
...263 FCR 92 at 127 [155]. 105 Sparry's Case (1589) 5 Co Rep 61a at 61a [ 77 ER 148 at 148] (footnote omitted). 106 See Fitter v Veal (1701) 12 Mod 542 [ 88 ER 1506]. cf Burrows, Remedies for Torts, Breach of Contract, and Equitable Wrongs, 4th ed (2019) at 107 Moyle v West (1553) 1 Dyer 92b ......
-
Jalla and another v Shell International Trading and Shipping Company Ltd and another
...of action separate from the first. The facts therefore fell outside, and did not infringe, the general rule (see, eg, Fitter v Veal (1701) 12 Mod 542) that damages for a cause of action must be recovered once and for all; and the limitation period had, therefore, not expired. All their Lord......
-
Foley v. Greene, (1990) 85 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 156 (NFTD)
...126 D.L.R.(3d) 681 (Ont. C.A.), consd. [para. 25]. Fitter v. Veal (1701), 12 Mod. 542, (sub. tit Fetter v. Beale) 1 Ld. Raym. 339, 692; 88 E.R. 1506, not folld. [para. Derrick v. Williams, [1939] 1 All E.R. 559 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 28]. Johnson v. Mount Albert B.C., [1979] 2 N.Z.L.R. 234......