Case Name: Amelia Vredenburgh, Resp't, v. The New York Central & Hudson River R. R. Co., App'lt
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1890-12-08
Citations: 34 N.Y. St. Rep. 953
Docket Number: 
Parties: Amelia Vredenburgh, Resp’t, v. The New York Central & Hudson River R. R. Co., App’lt.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 34
Pages: 953–954

Head Matter:
Amelia Vredenburgh, Resp’t, v. The New York Central & Hudson River R. R. Co., App’lt.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,
Filed December 8, 1890 )
Railroads—Negligence.
"When the car stopped at her destination, plaintiff, who was 55 years old, attempted to leave the car, opened the door with difficulty and was about to step from the platform when the train started, and she was thrown to the ground and injured so that she has been unable to use her right arm. Held, that the testimony was ample to support a verdict for plaintiff, and that one for $6,500 was not excessive.
Appeal from judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered on verdict, and from order denying motion for a new trial on the minutes.
The action was for damages for a personal injury occasioned solely by the negligence of the defendant. A total loss of the use of an arm with pain continuing from the time of the injury, down to the time of the trial, six months, was a result and the jury rendered a verdict for $6,500.
The plaintiff bought a ticket of defendant and boarded one of its trains at Tarrytown and proceeded to Croton. When approaching the station, the plaintiff and her daughter arose and went to the door of the car in which they were and opened it The train then stopped and the plaintiff attempted to get off. Ro train hand was near. As plaintiff reached the last step and was in the act of stepping to the ground, the car started with a violent jerk, and threw the plaintiff to the ground and she was dragged some distance while holding the rail for support. Finally her hold was loosened by the force of the movement of the car and she was held down on the ground by two men in order that she, in her excitement, should not be struck by the train from which she alighted or one which then passed from the opposite direction. The daughter had no time to alight and was carried to the train yard, above the station, from which she walked back and found her mother.
In being thrown from the train and being dragged along the ground, the plaintiff received her injuries.
Plaintiff was a nurse, earning from seven to eight dollars a week, but since the accident has been unable to dress herself, ■ comb her hair, or do any work, thus necessitating the attendance of another person to take care of her.
Anna Vredenburgh, daughter of plaintiff, says that the door was open, and her mother stood in it when the train stopped; that she offered to get off ahead, but her mother said that she could get -off herself, and went right down the steps lightly and alertly, as passengers usually do, but looked up and down. The train only stopped for an instant.
Other passengers testified that they had time to alight, and walk away without noticing the accident.
Calvin Frost, for app’lt; Irving Brown, for resp’t.

Opinion:
Dykman, J.
This is an appeal from a judgment entered upon a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, and from an order denying a motion to set aside the verdict on the minutes of the court.
The action is for the recovery of the damages resulting from injuries received by the plaintiff while a passenger on the railroad of the defendant.
The plaintiff, with her daughter, entered the car of the defendant at Tarrytown, to be carried to Croton, and as the train slowed up or stopped at Croton, she arose and went to the door of the car, which she opened with difficulty, and stepped on the platform, and as she was about to leave the steps and alight upon the ground the 'train was started and she was precipitated to the ground.
The defendant upon the trial made but slight controversy respecting its own negligence, but insisted that the plaintiff contributed her own negligence to the production of the accident
Both questions were submitted to the jury under a charge somewhat severe against the plaintiff, and yet the jury gave her the verdict. We cannot say the testimony was insufficient to justify the verdict, and on the contrary we find it ample for that purpose.
Complaint is made of the verdict, but it is not so large as to evince the presence of passion or prejudice, and if the jury believed the testimony introduced by the plaintiff respecting the extent and permanency of her injuries, we can very well see how the verdict was made as it was.
We find no reason for interference" with the verdict, and the judgment and order should be affirmed, with costs.
Barnard, P. J., and Pratt, J., concur.