Case ID: ny-st-rep_29/html/0822-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Barnard, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jane Montgomery, Resp’t, v. The Long Island Railroad Company, App’lt.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,
    
    
      Filed February 10, 1890.)
    
    TTegligencb—Evidence.
    In an action for injuries alleged to have been caused by negligence, an expert may properly be allowed to testify that the precise injuries had been occasioned by a fall, and that they are permanent.
    
      Appeal from judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered upon the verdict of a jury.
    Action for injuries alleged to have been caused by defendant’s negligence.
    
      E. B. Hinsdale, for app’lt; Dailey & Bell, for resp’t
   Barnard, P. J.

The plaintiff gave evidence tending to show that the defendant suddenly started its horse car upon which she was a passenger as she was getting off, and threw her down and injured her severely. She testified" to the injuries she had received. An expert witness was asked whether such injuries could be produced by a fall, and whether they were permanent The evidence was objected to and admitted. The ruling was accurate and proper. The fact that the precise injury had been occasioned by the fall was proper.

The surgeon aided the testimony by showing that the injury was such as a sudden fall would produce. The permanent nature of the injuries could be proven by skilled men who knew the fact. Such witnesses must not speculate, but must be able to testify to» a result reasonably certain to happen from the injury. There was, no such testimony as was condemned in the case of Strohm v. N. Y., Lake Erie & Western R. R. Co., 96 N. Y., 305. The surgeon testified that the injuries were permanent. The verdict is not against the evidence. This question was passed upon when the. appeal from the order granting a new trial was considered and decided by this court The judgment should, therefore, be affirmed, with costs.

Dykhan and Pratt, JJ., concur.