Case ID: ny-st-rep_70/html/0898-03.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

John D. Barrett, Resp’t, v. New York Cent. & H. R. R. Co., App’lt.
    Sup. Ct., 4 D.
    December, 1895.
    
      O. D. Prescott, for app’lt; Beans <6 Eneeland, for resp’t.
   Per Curiam.

—A careful examination of the evidence contained in the appeal book has led us to the conclusion that the question whether the defendant was liable in this action, under the doctrine of Rounds v. Railroad Co., 64 N. Y. 170; Hoffman v. Railroad Co., 87 id. 25; McCann v. Railroad Co., 117 id. 505, 23 N. E. 164 ; Hogan v. Railroad Co., 124 N. Y. 647 ; 26 N. E. 950; Ansteth v. Railway Co., 145 N. Y. 210 ; 39 N. E. 708— and other kindred cases, was a question of fact, was properly submitted to the jury, and that Its verdict should be upheld. Nor do we think the judgment should be disturbed upon the ground that the plaintiff’s recovery was excessive. In this case the plaintiff lost his right hand, and one of his legs was seriously injured. After examining the evidence which- shows the extent of the plaintiff’s injuries, we find no reason to believe that the jury was misled by passion or prejudice, or coerced by any improper influence. We have examined the various exceptions to which our attention has been called by the appellant in his brief, but have found none which requires us to reverse the judgment. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.