Case ID: ny-st-rep_70/html/0756-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Michael G. Cannon, Resp’t, v. Brooklyn City Railroad Company, App’lt.
    
      (Brooklyn City Court, General Term,
    
    
      Filed November 25, 1895.)
    
    Damages—Personal injories.
    In an action by a husb' id for personal injuries to his wife, a verdict of $10,000, is not excessivt where she was, at the time of the accident, a strong, healthy woman, irty-eight years old, and since then has been, and always will be, a phy cal wreck.
    Appeal from a judge |ent entered on a verdict in favor of plaintiff, and from an ord \ denying a motion for a new trial.
    
      Morris & Whitehouse, fo iapp’lt; Chas. J. Patterson, for resp’t.
   Per Curiam.

We have considered all the exceptions to which our attention has been called in the points of the appellant, and conclude that our decision on the appeal in the case of Annie Cannon against The Appellant, 29 S'. Y. Supp. 722, is conclusive as to the correctness of the rulings of the learned trial judge.

It is claimed that the verdict for $10,000 is excessive. The jury found, on conflicting testimony, that the wife of the plaintiff, just prior to her injury, was a strong, healthy woman, about thirty-eight years of age, and that ever since the injury she has been a confirmed invalid ; that her health will not improve, and that during her future life she will be a burden to her husband, and not a comfort; that she can never be a wife to him again. The future damages to the plaintiff are, in a certain sense, speculative; and yet the law leaves it to a jury to decide the amount, in actions of this kind,- provided that such damages are reasonably certain. The preponderance of the evidence is with the plaintiff as to the good health of his wife prior to her injury, and it appears at the date of trial she was a physical wreck, and will always so continue. The verdict, though large, does not seem to us, in view qf the evidence, to be the result of passion, prejudice, or si^mpathy.

Judgment and order denying new trial, affirmed, with costs..