Case ID: ny-sup-ct_98/html/0640-04.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Pratt, J.:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Gustav Heinz, as Administrator, etc., Respondent, v. The Brooklyn Heights Railroad Company, Appellant.
   Judgment affirmed, with costs.—

Pratt, J.:

Several witnesses testified that the car was going fourteen or fifteen miles an hour. There 'were also two persons besides the motorman standing upon the front platform. There was enough evidence to go to the jury upon the question of defendant’s negligence. The deceased hoy was seven years of age, and the question whether he exercised such care as can be reasonably required from a lad of that age was peculiarly a question for the jury. The motion for nonsuit was properly denied. The charge of the court could not be objected to by defendants. The only question that remains is whether a verdict of -$3,500 for the life of a bright and healthy hoy is excessive. That is peculiarly a question for the jury. We cannot say the verdict shows passion or prejudice. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Brown, P. J., and Dykman, J., concurred.