Case ID: silv-sup_2/html/0588-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Dykman, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Louisa C. Hoffkins, Respondent, v. The Manhattan Ry. Co., Appellant.
    
      Supreme Court, Second Department, General Term,
    
    
      July 2, 1889.
    Appeal.—Judgment in favor of the plaintiff will be affirmed by the general term, where there is no evidence of plaintiff’s negligence and there is sufficient .proof of the negligence of defendant’s servants to carry the cause to the jury, in the absence of any question of law.
    Appeal from a judgment entered upon a verdict, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial.
    
      Davies & Rappalo, for appellant.
    
      Cornelius E. Kene, for respondent.
   Dykman, J.

The plaintiff was a passenger upon the defendant’s road, and left the cars at Franklin Square station. As she took the second step upon the station platform, she perceived that her dress was caught, and at the same time the train started and she was drawn down and her dress was torn off. Her side was injured and she suffered from nervousness and insomnia. The cause was tried at the circuit and the plaintiff recovered a verdict for $750.

There was sufficient proof to carry the cause to the jury upon the question of the negligence of the defendant’s servants, and the charge of the trial judge was free from error.

There was neither proof nor evidence of any negligence on the part of the plaintiff and we find no merit in the appeal.

The judgment and order denying the motion for a new trial should be affirmed, with costs.

All concur.