Case Name: Catharine Hynds, Respondent, v. The Brooklyn Heights Railroad Company, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1906-03-02
Citations: 111 A.D. 339
Docket Number: 
Parties: Catharine Hynds, Respondent, v. The Brooklyn Heights Railroad Company, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 111
Pages: 339–341

Head Matter:
Catharine Hynds, Respondent, v. The Brooklyn Heights Railroad Company, Appellant.
Second Department,
March 2, 1906.
Negligence — evidence of eruptions resulting from injuries to abdomen, when admissible under allegations of complaint.
In an action to recover for injuries received by negligence, when the complaint alleges that the plaintiff was struck in the abdomen and injured and bruised there and internally, it is not error to admit proof that eruptions appeared on the abdomen when the sa'me are shown to have been a development of the injury alleged.
Hooker, J., dissented, with opinion; Hirschberg, P. J., concurring.
Appeal by the defendant, The Brooklyn Heights Railroad Company, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Kings on the 21st day of January, 1905, upon the verdict of a jury for $6,000, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 20th day of January, 1905, denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.
The .material allegations of the complaint appear in the dissenting opinion of Hooker, J., post.
I. R. Oeland [George D. Yeomans with him on the brief], for the appellant.
George V. Brower, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Gaynor, J.:
The complaint lacks precision, but in its bungling way (which we have to overlook in pleadings nowadays) it alleges that the .plaintiff was struck in the abdomen and bruised, blackened and injured there, and internally. The plaintiff described the severe pains she suffered in the abdomen from the time of the accident and eruptions like blisters that came out on her abdomen. These latter were objected to as not pleaded. Enough was pleaded to cover all pains, discolorations, swellings and eruptions or blisters of the abdomen. That the doctors gave such eruptions and blisters a scientific name and said they were caused by the abdominal pain did not make proof of ' them erroneous on the ground they were not within the issue. They- . were necessarily mentioned in describing the progress and development of. the hurt to the abdomen. , .
The judgment should be affirmed.
Woodward and Jenks, JJ., concurred; Hooker, J., read for reversal, with whom Hirschberg, P. J., concurred.