Action  for  damages  to  plaintiff's  person  and  wagon  resulting
from  a  collision  with  one  of  defendant's  cars.  A  judgment  was
rendered  in  favor  of  the  plaintiff,  which  was  affirmed  by  the
General  Term,  and  the  defendant  appealed.*

FoLLETT,  Ch.  j.  *  *  *  The  plaintiff  was  permitted  to  tes-
tify, over  defendant's  objection,  that  the  evidence  was  not  with-
in the  issue,  that  while  suffering  from  his  injury  he  employed
two  men  to  work  in  his  place,  paying  them  $12  and  $15  per  week
each,  $135  in  the  aggregate.  When  a  plaintiff  alleges  that  his
person  has  been  injured  and  proves  the  allegation,  the  law
implies  damages,  and  he  may  recover  such  as  necessarily  and
immediately  flow  from  the  injury  (which  are  called  general
damages)  under  a  general  allegation  that  damages  were  sus-
tained; but  if  he  seeks  to  recover  damages  for  consequences
which  do  not  necessarily  and  immediately  flow  from  the  injury
(which  are  called  special  damages),  he  must  allege  the  special
damages  which  he  seeks  to  recover.  It  is  not  alleged  in  the
complaint  that  the  plaintiff  expended  money  in  hiring  others  to
work  in  his  place ;  the  defendant  had  no  opportunity  of  contra-
dicting the  evidence,  and  its  reception  was  error.  (Gilligan  v.
N.  Y.  &  Harlem  R.  R.  Co.,  1  E.  D.  Smith  453 ;  Stevens  v.  Rodger,
25  Hun  54 ;  Whitney  v.  Hitchcock,  4  Denio  461 ;  2  Thompson
on  Negligence,  1250,  §§  32,  33;  2  Sedg.  on  Dam.  (7th  Ed.)  606;
1  Chitty's  PI.  (16th  Am.  Ed.)  411,  515;  Mayne  on  Damages,
chap."  17;  Heard's  Civil  PI.  310-314.)     *     *    *

Judgment  reversed.
4  Statement   condensed   and   part  of  the   opinion   omitted.
Sec.  1.]    Facts  Constituting  the  Cause  op  Action.  361

MORROW  V.  ST.  PAUL  CITY  RY.  CO.
