Case ID: ny-st-rep_70/html/0755-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Yan Wyck, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Michael Degnan, Resp’t, v. Brooklyn City Railroad Company, App’lt.
    
      (Brooklyn City Court, General Term,
    
    
      Filed November 25, 1895.)
    
    1. Street railroads—Right of way.
    The rights of the street car company and a person traveling along an intersecting street are equal. 16
    2. Same.
    Each should use such reasonable care in the exercise of such right, as not to interfere with the right of the other.
    3. Same—Question for jury.
    Whether they did or did not use such reasonable care to avoid such interference with or injury to one another, is properly submitted to the jury.
    
      4. Damages—Excessive. ,
    The verdict for $4,000, for personal injuries was held, in this case, not to be excessive.
    Appeal from a judgment entered "on" a verdict in favor of plaintiff, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial.
    
      Morris & Whitehouse, for app’lt, Thos. E. Pearsall, for resp’t.
   Yan Wyck, J.

There is testimony from which ft can he fairly inferred that plaintiff was in a buggy with one Hart, going along Classon avenue in a southerly direction, towards Putnam avenue, through which defendant’s cars run; that as they reached Putnam avenue they looked up and down that avenue, and saw no car, and that, as their horse stepped on the northerly or down track, they saw a car about seventy-five feet away ; that the horse was urged across, and the car struck the hind wheel of the buggy,. tipping plaintiff out. and going some forty feet further before it stopped, though the car could have been stopped, if going at the speed defendant claims it was, in aboqt five feet. The right of way of plaintiff and defendant was equal at the intersection of these two streets. Bach had to cross the line of passage of the other, to, enable them to proceed on their journe}*-. Bach should have used reasonable care in the exercise of such right, so as not to have interfered with the right of the other. Whether they did or did not use such reasonable care to avoid such interference with or injury tq one another was properly submitted to the jury, and we see no cause for disturbing the decision of the jury that defendant was negligent, and the plaintiff free therefrom. Buhrens v. D. D., E. B. & B. Railroad Co., 25 St. Rep. 191; affirmed, 125 N. Y. 702 ; O'Neill v. D. D., E. B. & B. Railway Co., 129 id. 125; 41 St. Rep. 107.

There is medical testimony which shows that plaintiff’s injuries from this accident are of a most serious character, viz. a permanent paralysis of the large muscle that caps the shoulder, impairing the lifting power of the arm, and also a permanent curvature of the spine. Bor such injuries we think the jury was fully justified in giving a verdict of $4,000.

Judgment and order must be affirmed, with costs.