JB/100/198/001

Click Here To Edit

25

Compensation.
This brings or rather has already brought us to the
2. It may if the cir-
-cumstances of the
author of the da-
-mage be infe-
-rior to those of the
sufferer.
2d case of the ratio that may subsist between of the circumstances of the contend-
-ing parties: to wit that in which the author of the party to whom the damage
is imputed damage is the poorer. We see already that he might even
on the ground of compensation the share he ought to be made to bear of the damage
is less than what he ought to be made to bear were
the other party no richer than himself.
+
+To Ins. 1. No 1.

We may therefore lay down one rule which will
General Rule for
the ratio of Compensation
in all three cases
comprise both all these cases. The Rule is this
This is The burthen of compensation should be divided in such
a manner between the parties, that the ratio whi of
the sums they have to pay to their fortunes should re-
-spectively be equal: except that if the burthen
which falls upon th him to whom the damage is
imputed should be thought not sufficient [in the case
in question to answer the purpose] for prevention, as much
should be added to it as is wanting to will render it sufficient.
-----
NOTE.
other Houses. This obligation a the Statute of of the
year 1707 + took away. Now this was exactly the case we have
+6 An. c. 31. §. 6
been supposing. The circumstances fortunes of the parties, no rea-
-son being to be given for their any inequality, must be
supposed equals: and the circumstances of their living in
contiguous houses circumstances that favour the supposition is a reason for the affirmative. The
damage which the supposed negligent party must himself
sustain seems to have been was thought sufficient for prevention: and this da-
-mage is more likely to be greater than that of any neighbour,
than less or barely equal. As this damage must be sustained by
him at any rate, his fortune must therefore at any rate be
reduced in the first instance before the level of their's. This
then was held a sufficient reason why even upon the supposition of there having been but [in the case of only] one neigh-
-bour thus indamaged, the remainder of the loss should be born by being such
rather than by [the author of the damage] neighbour rather than by him on whom
the first loss had fallen.

Identifier: | JB/100/198/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 100.
Date_1		Marginal Summary Numbering	not numbered
Box	100	Main Headings	punishment
Folio number	198	Info in main headings field	compensation
Image	001	Titles	note
Category	text sheet	Number of Pages	4
Recto/Verso	recto	Page Numbering	f25 / f26 / f27 / f28
Penner	jeremy bentham	Watermarks	[[watermarks::v g [sic] propatria [britannia motif]]]
Marginals	jeremy bentham	Paper Producer	caroline vernon
Corrections		Paper Produced in Year
Notes public		ID Number	32214
Box Contents