Case ID: misc_15/html/0019-01.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

Michael F. Burns, as Administrator, Respondent, v. The Houston, West Street & Pavonia Ferry Railroad Co., Appellant.
    (New York Superior Court—General Term,
    December, 1895.)
    Negligence—Pleading—Amendment increasing demand.
    An amendment of a complaint in an action for injuries resulting in death which accrued prior to the adoption of the new 'Constitution, by increasing the demand for damages to an amount in' excess of that permitted by the statute, is not prejudicial error Where the verdict of the jury does not exceed the statutory limit.
    Appeal by defendant from judgment entered upon the verdict of a jury and from an order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial.
    
      Henry A. Robinson (John T. Little, Jr., of counsel), for appellant.
    
      William Sulzer and William Armstrong, for respondent.
   Freedman, J.

Although it has- been decided by the Court ’ of Appeals that the constitutional provision that the amount recoverable in an action for damages for injuries resulting in death shall not be subject to any statutory limitation does not operate retrospectively, and does not. affect" causes. of action accrued before the said constitutional provision went into effect, the defendant in the case at bar was not prejudiced.by the- amendment permitting the plaintiff to-increase the demand for damages from $5,000 to $25,000, and the verdict of the jury did not exceed the limit of $5,000.

Upon a careful review of the whole case it clearly appears that the case was one for the jury both upon the question of negligence and the question of contributory negligence"; that no error was committed in the admission of evidence or in refusing to dismiss the complaint, and that the verdict is not against • the evidence or against the weight' of the evidence.. Moreover, the verdict should" not be disturbed “as excessive.

The judgment and order should be affirmed, with costs;.

McAdam and Gildersleeve, JJ., concur.

Judgment and order affirmed, with cost's.