Case ID: ny-st-rep_32/html/0376-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Freedman, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Emeline L. Fitch, Resp’t, v. The Broadway & Seventh Ave. R. R. Co., App’lt.
    
      (New York Superior Court, General Term
    
    
      Filed June 27, 1890.)
    
    . Negligence — Damages.
    Plaintiff, while a passenger on defendant’s car, sustained injuries which resulted in the shortening of one limb, causing great pain and suffering and preventing the performance of her household duties. Held, that a verdict of $7,000 was not excessive.
    Appeal by defendant from judgment entered in favor of plaintiff upon the verdict of a jury and from order denying motion for a new trial.
    Action brought by plaintiff to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by falling from one of defendant’s cars. Plaintiff, who was sixty-three years old, on February 13, 1889, was a passfenger on one of defendant’s cars. Desiring to alight at Forty-second street, she motioned the conductor, who thereupon signaled the driver, and the speed of the car was slackened and it proceeded slowly to the lower corner of Forty-second street and there came to a standstill. In the meanwhile plaintiff had arisen and gone to the rear door and there remained standing until the car had stopped entirely. She then passed out upon the platform and was stepping down when the conductor struck the bell, the car was started and she was thrown violently to the ground, causing injuries which resulted in the shortening of the leg and causing her great pain. She is unable to attend to her household duties or to dress herself without assistance, and the evidence shows that she will never be free from ‘pain or have the full use of her limb.
    
      Root & Clarke, for app’lt; Lexow & Haldane, for resp’t:
   Freedman, J.

The only point presented by the appellant is that upon the whole case the judgment should be reversed because the damages awarded^ by the jury were excessive. The action is for personal injuries. I have examined the evidence with care, and I fail to see how, considering the nature of the injuries and the amount of pain and suffering endured by the plaintiff, the verdict, which is for $7,000, can be held to be excessive. Cases are to be found in large numbers in which larger recoveries have been sustained for similar injuries.

The judgment and order should be affirmed, with costs.

Ingraham, J., concurs.