The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1898-07-29
GUNMERE'S OPINION
Full Text Of the Decision
Which Has Caused So
Much Talk.
STATUTE ON WHICH IT IS BASED
Many Precedents Quoted by
the Justice to Strengthen
His Position.
STATUTE ON WHICH IT IS BASED
Especial to "The Jersey city News

July ~ lo5o.-IHe lOllOWluS
is the full text Of Supreme Court Justice
Gummere's opinion in the case of Graham
against the Consolidated Traction Com
pany. which has created so much criti-
cism:-
Melville T. Graham, a child between
four and five years of age. was run over
by one Of the cars of the defendant COM
pany, and killed, on the 10th of April, 1896,
and this suit was brought by this admins
traitor to recover the p~ecuniary loss sus-
| tanned by the next Of kin Of said decedent
by reason of his Death. The case came on
| at the Hudson Circuit Court at the Sep
tember term. 1896, and resulted in a YER
diet for the plaintiff for 5000. A rule 10
| show cause why the verdict should not be
set aside and a new trial granted was al
lowed by the trial Judge, and, on hearing
of the rule, this court directed that the
verdict be set aside as 'absurdly excess
sive,' and a venire de novo issued, unless
the plaintiff woul consent to have the
verdict reduced to 81, 600. The plaintiff
having refused to consent to this reduc-
ton. the rule to show cause was made
absolute!
THE case came on to be tried a second
time, at the October term, 1897, and, at
that trial, a second verdict for 5000 was
rendered in favor of the plaintiff. A seq
ond rule to show cause having been al
lowed by the trial judge, we are now
asked by the defendant to direct a third
trial, for the same reason that a second
one was ordered.
This Application mould prevail. As has
already been said. in effect. by this Court,
it is patent that when damages, in a case
of this kind, are assessed by the jury at
such a sum of $1,000, they are not esti-
mated upon any correct legal principle.
Olr statilte confines the amount Of the
~
r~ecoyery N sucl cases 70 the pecuiiiaiy
injury sustained by the next of kin by
reason Of the death of the decedent: and
MAJ i,j,,rv az . sata ~ Pa SLOW Oh
e4iae ti9uis "s VS. saM y ps -
Jus, IN Paul1nier VS. Erie X. K. 20. D VI.
1873. is nothing more thar a deprivation
az . raasonab la tfon of ! necrniarv
advantage which would have resulted by
a continuance of the life of the deceased.
SIT Is tha ,,nivareal r,,la that children
are an expense, ana NOT u pechHlafy
benefit. to the father. If at the fathers
daath an aeco,,nt was stated showing on
- - ss I.
the one sloe' the moneys eApehaeo os
him in the education, maintenance and
s,j,,nort .of the child and. on the other
$3.50 $3.50.
slae, the moneys fecelseu ~ me iaehei
from his child, In ninety-nlne cases out
Of every hundred the moneys expended
con 10 honos+ 80 80 ab;1d would no
iol tne peHei y ~ Hiu "ouiu ~
found to be far in excess of the amount
received from him. And vet. on the
=. 49, 4hsr 1900
eneols 1poh "nten ats setutS : o@sea'
the larger a mans family is, the more
likely is he to die rich. In the present
ase II LIZ ens u
reasonable expectation or belng b~enented,
in dollars and cents. to the extent of
IS. 600. by the continuance of the life of his,
deceased child a family of ten sons would
instify the ASSUMPTION that at his death
he would be better off by $50. 900 than he
would If he had never nae issue. The
mere statement of such an assumption
makes lis absurditv apparent.
ssrha vard;ct n the case Is so excessive
az ~ make If clear that it is not the re-
action az ffe i1,rv
..p,+ Nc ara toid +bat avar, ;e " a should
he Of opinion that the verdict is excessive
We shoilld moi disturb if because it is the
astabjished nraetice If this court not To
dist1,h re aeord of vo oonr,Irrjnr ver-
dicts n tIts ern1,nd t knny If mo- s,jch
nractice. inf II If EXISTS. # should c~ertain-
X be abandored. SO far as yerdfcts in
suits n Recover for nersonal Injuries or
doafb froro wranpful ans are concerned
IN tbesa cassa tbe norrt never disturhs
tl,a r,s,.5ief rnaralv hena,Iee n would have
assessaG tba IA naees al . different
amoInt 10 II had bee, sitting az a iurv,
II onlv interferes where the Verdict is so
an ~ +ha uray as RI iustifv the Inference
that II is the result Of nassion. preilldiee.
nartiality ar corrlnfion
..Rmt When If is annarent that such is
tbe case fhe 51,tv n the court is Main
Nor does If crow any the less pIain he
calse rf the Fact that another Jury on
: Former trial had seavrn nv q verdict
s;.;ia. 49, 49, ,Sfa5na - - aa,a
$780, rs as Tho div uehjc,, bad baan i'm
nnsed rnon Il 4 yyrnnp nv haine ner-
severed in does nor therefore become 4
ripht. NOR anes . verdict cease ia he ex-
cessiye nv reason If reteated rendifions
I,,st ss offan az . nfaintiff nersisfs in
Seeking ana q. i,Irv in RENDERING yerdicts
which ara nalnahlv and grossly excessive
i,,et 90 aften & is tbe as,tv III This court
- oantin1,o ~ cot ennb s-ardicts aside !,
The sfatI,te referred 70 bv the Justice in
the fh;rd nara ranh which statufa CON
fines the amo,13,t Of recovery III such
CAGES nc tbe one at nofnt To the pecI1niary
injury sustained bv the next of kin by
reason IF the death ofsfhe decedent. was
snnroved March 3 1915 and reads
Sec1ion / That whenever the death of a
nerson shall he caused ~ wrongful act
neelect or default and the act neglect
or default IL such AZ world IL death had
no+ ass,1ad nav entitled tba Marty IN
a. a in resnac. tbereof then and In
eyarv s,5cb case tha ,,erson who ar the
cornoration which woiIjd have been liable
;f daa 81 bad NOT ens,led shalt he liable
- In acfior For darnapes notwitbstand-
~ 80