The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1893-08-28

| railway accidents to passengers. and thu
running over of persons In tho street by
city railroad cars.
A decision which illustrates tho prevail
Ing tendency OF the courts in dealing with
cases OF this sort. 80 far rs damages are con.
cerned. Is that OF ANDREW MORRIS against
the Eighth Avenue Railroad Company. which
was very recently decided by the General
Term Of the Supreme Court for the First
Judicial department sitting in this city,
The plaintiff was q mason's tender who had
earned 50 day when he was able to find
work. He was run over by a car belonging
to tho defendant corporation, under such
circumstances as to show negligence on the
part OF the driver. His right leg was
crushed near the ankle, 30 that 1t was nee
essary 10 amputate 1t. The jury rendered
q verdict In favor OF the plaintiff for
$4,000. The General Term, speaking
through Judge DAVID J.. FoLLETT OF
Norwich. holds that this was too much.
" The verdict at five yer cent. interest"
says Mr.. Justice FoLLETT. represents
an earning power OF $3.50. considerably
more. probably. than the plaintiff could
have earned. He was entitled to be COM
no endured. and for his diminished ability
to earn money In the future. The interest
on the verdict indemn!tles the plaintiff for
his diminished earning power. and the
principal sum is In addition. This we think
Is more than compensatory damages and
that verdict OF $4,000 Is all that the evil
dence warrants" A new trial was there
fore granted. unless tho plaintiff stipulated
to reduce the verdict to $1,000. in accord
ance with the opinion Of the General Term.
Judge MORGAN J. O'BRIEN dissented from
this reduction, declaring that. In his opin-
ion, the facts warranted recovery for
the full amount awarded by tho jury.
It would not be difficult to find many cases
In the law reports in which the Judges on
appeal have refused to set aside verdcts
in negligence suits where tho amount
under the circumstances was quite as
generous as the $4,000 verdict in this
NORRIS case. We confess we do not
that the interest indemnifles the plaintiff
for his diminished earning power. and the
principal sum Is in addition" In order to
obtain the interest the plaintiff must invest
the principal sum. and therefore he can
derive no other enjoyment from 1t than the
receipt Of the interest. II he preserves the
in this way. his next OF kin or leg
atees will receive the benefit Of 1t upon his
death. but 1t Is little difficult to see in what
sense the principal sum is beneficial to him
Gin addition" to the interest
which 1t provides.
Furthermore. in reducing this verdict to
the extent Of four-ninths. 1t seems to US
that the General Term must have left out
Of view the fact that very considerable
portion Of the recovery would probably 60
to the plaintiffs attorney. In many negli-
gence cases. where the plaintiff is poor. the
counsel have to rely for their compensation
almost solely upon q successful prosecu
ton Of the suit: and it is not uncommon
for them to receive as much as one-third OF
the verdict under such circumstances. II
the contingent fee of the attorney in the
MORRIS case was such percentage, the in
iured man, as the result Of the reduction in
the verdict. would probably not receive
more than S., 800 for the loss Of his right leg