The Jersey City news., 1899-11-14
GRAHAM LOSES.
The Verdict Of SIS. 900 For
His Boys Death Set Aside
For the Third Time.
MOTORMAN NOT TO BLAME
The Damages Are Found
Excessive and a New
Trial Is Ordered.
Especial 10 .srhe Jersey CITY News."l

lSpeclal 10 -Ine Jersey lily NEWS.
TERENToN. Nov. IA, 1ss9.-For the
third time .ip the case Of Abraham j..
Graham administrator against the Con-
solidated Traction Company, the Supreme
Court yesterday set aside the verdict for
5000 secured by the PLAINTIFF. This case
was made famous by the fact that it was
the one In which Justice Gummere was
construed as having given an opinion that
the life of a child was worth only 81,
although 1t was afterwards shown that
this was not an accurate construction OF
his opinion.
The case was argued for the third
time at the June term Of court, before
Chief Justices Magic. and Justices Van
syckel Garrison and Lippincott. The
opinion Is by the Chief Justice
The Chief Justice finds two grounds
upon which he says new trial must pc
granted Mr.. Graham sued to recover
damages for the death OF his four-year-
old son at the hands Of the Traction
Company.
To succeed in such an action, the
Court says the plaintiff must establish
by a preponderance Of proof that the
death was caused by the wrongful act
neglect of default of ap erson or corpo-
ration who would have been liable to
an action for damages If the death mad
not ensued.
An examination Of the state OF the
case. the opinion says clearly SHOWS
that the trial Judge was right in an
nouncing to the jury that the plaintin
rested his right to recover upon the
negligence Of the motorman in one OF
three respects namely maintaining an
excessive rate of speed In the locaiity
where the injury occurred, or not keep
ing 4 proper lookout for persons crossing
In front Of his car, or not giving warn
inc "a such persons by ringing the gong
of the car.
The evidence, the Court finds, did not
sufficiently prove that any Of these con-
ditions prevailed.
The Chief Justice says that the case
presents very unusual feature mas
much as three times the plaintiff has
recovered q verdict for $1,000, and three
times this verdict has been set ASIDE
IN support of the equally unusual
course of the Court in setting aside the
verdict SO often the Chief Justice says
1T is strenuousiy. urged In support OF
this verdict that, in general, courts VIII
not disturb second verdict if in sub
stantial accord with the previous verdict
which had been set aside. and that,
fortiori third verdict in identical
terms ought not to be disturbed by the
Court.
sThis argument is applicable and
would prevail in many cases, con
tinues the opinion. 1T cannot be ap-
nlieable to cases where. the verdict
plainly indicates that It is the result OF
ignorance. prejudice, passion or corrup-
tion. or Is irreconcilable with the evidence
I'm the trial now under review the
trial Judge correctly instructed the jury
in regard to the rule for admeasuring
damages in the case. notwithstanding
his explicit instructions the jury award
ed the sum Of 5000. and If such award
exceeds the amount which the rule would
alone justify, it clearly indicates that the
iury refused to take the instructions OF
the Court, and that their verdict must
have proceeded upon some other ground
than that presented by the evidence.
SIT is true that the amount of damages
in such cases must be estimated on prob
abilities and as was said by Chief JUS
t,ce Beasley, to a large extent upon con-
iectures and uncertainties. 1t results
that there may be great differences In
the results reached by different persons
unon the same facts. but while this re-
ouires the Court to be extremely eau
tious in exercising its power to review
the verdict Of the jury on the ground Of
the excess Of damages, it will not ex-
euse us for withholding our hands and
permitting an unjust verdict to stand
when no possible inference in its favor
can be drawn from the evidence, The
argument addressed to us in this respect
would require US to permit verdict for
800 600 to stand as one for s5,oO
ssuch cannot be the rule of duty in this
court. If, on the evidence, verdict Of the
Jury dlscloses injustice, whether from ig-
norance or malice, or corruption, this
court cannot permit it to be enforced.
ssThe damages properly to be awarded in
the case were such as would compensate
the father for the reasona BILE expectation
of pecuniary benefit from the deceased,
during the period Of his minority when he
owed service to his father and thereafter
when he would become emancipated by
being of full age. To fix the precise
amount that would thus compensate the
father may he difficult, perhaps impossi-
BILE: but it is not impossible to determine
that 5000 far exceeds any reasonable
probability Of pecuniary benefit from the
continued life of the deceased. Looking
at the liability of the father for the sup
port, maintenance and education Of the
child during minority. and considering
what pecuniary benefit the father would
receive from the sons earnings during or
after maturity in the most favorable
aspect. 1t Is plain that the award far ex-
ceeds any possible amount of such pecuni-
ary benefit
son this ground alone the verdict must
be set aside and new trial. granted.
TIE other casts Of local interest IN
which decisions were rendered were told
with sufficient detail in yesterdays