Dr. Pepper Bottling Co. v. Rainboldt
In Dr. Pepper Bottling Co. v. Rainboldt, 66 S.W.2d 496, 501 (Tex. Civ. App.--Waco 1933), a delivery truck struck a young girl.
The defendant argued on appeal that the trial court allowed a double recovery because "physical pain and anguish are involved in bodily impairment."
The court of appeals rejected that argument, pointing out that the trial court had defined bodily impairment as "the loss or injury of a member."
The court explained that there was, of course, pain incident to such a loss, but that it was separate.
The court continued:
To illustrate, a man might lose his leg; that would be a bodily impairment.
In connection with the loss of the leg, he might suffer at the same time pain and anguish.
The wound might heal and the pain and anguish disappear, but the bodily impairment, to wit, the loss of the leg, would remain.
The evidence in Dr. Pepper supports the element of bodily impairment.
Her bladder is permanently injured. She will not be able to bear children.
Her injuries are permanent. Id.