Case Name: Ruben Levison, an Infant, etc., Appellant, v. Simon E. Bernheimer et al., Respondents
Court: New York City Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1900-03
Citations: 31 Misc. 26
Docket Number: 
Parties: Ruben Levison, an Infant, etc., Appellant, v. Simon E. Bernheimer et al., Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 31
Pages: 26–28

Head Matter:
Ruben Levison, an Infant, etc., Appellant, v. Simon E. Bernheimer et al., Respondents.
(City Court of New York, General Term,
March, 1900.)
Negligence — Proof of convulsions under an allegation of shock.
Where the complaint in an action alleges that certain injuries sustained by the plaintiff caused him to suffer from severe shock and nervous prostration and that he believes his injuries to be permanent, he is entitled to prove thereunder, by his attending physician, that the latter had treated him for convulsions and that he had had epileptic fits which were the result of shock.
Appeae by the plaintiff from a judgment in favor of the defendants for costs, upon a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for five dollars, and also from an order denying plaintiff’s motion for a new trial.
The action was brought to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff, a child aged six and one-half years, from the negligence of the driver of defendants’ truck, who permitted one of the horses to place his forelegs on the sidewalk and strike the child in the back, he being two feet inside the curb.
Manheim & Manheim (Jacob Manheim, of counsel), for appellant.
Ashbel P. Fitch (Grant 0. Fox, of counsel), for respondents.

Opinion:
O'Dwyer, J.
The verdict of five dollars in favor of the plaintiff should be set aside as insufficient. By its verdict the jury have said that the plaintiff sustained injuries by reason of the negligence of the defendants, and without any negligence on the part of the plaintiff contributing thereto, and that those injuries were received in the manner claimed by the plaintiff. It appears from the testimony of Dr. Bosenbaum, the defendants' witness, that, shortly after the accident, the plaintiff was brought to the dispensary, and that the physician in charge examined him and found a lacerated scalp wound, which he washed with bichlorides and bandaged up. Excluding from our consideration all the evidence offered by the plaintiff as to the nature and extent of the injuries received, we are of opinion that the sum awarded by the jury was insufficient to compensate for the conceded injury. The physician who had treated the plaintiff after the injuries testified that he treated him for convulsions, and that he had epileptic fits, which were the result of a shock. Defendants' counsel objected to this testimony as incompetent on the pleadings, and moved to strike out all of such testimony, upon the ground that it was not pleaded. The motion of defendants' counsel was granted, and the plaintiff's counsel duly excepted. The complaint alleges that the plaintiff was thrown violently to the ground, causing severe injuries to the head, left leg and foot of the plaintiff, and other parts of his body; that the-plaintiff was thereby and then lacerated, bruised, cut and contused in and about the .head, left leg and foot and other parts of his body; that as a result of such injuries sustained as aforesaid he was-made lame, sore, sick and disabled; that he suffered and continues-to suffer by reason of such injuries occasioned as aforesaid from extreme pain of body and distress of mind, and also from severe-shock and nervous prostration, -and, as he is informed and verily believes, will permanently suffer from the effects of such injuries. Under these allegations it was error to strike out the evidence. Ehrgott v. Mayor, 96 N. Y. 265; Filer v. N. Y. C. R. R. Co., 49 id. 42; Tyler v. Third Ave. R. R. Co., 18 Misc. Rep. 165; Tuomey v. O'Reilly, Skelly & Fogarty, 1 Misc. Rep. 351; 52 N. Y. St. Repr. 122; Schuler v. Third Ave. R. R. Co., 3 Misc. Rep. 302; 48 N. Y. St. Repr. 663.
The judgment and order appealed from should be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide event.
Fitzsimons, Oh. J., and Conlax, J., concur.
Judgment and order reversed and new trial ordered, with costs-to appellant to abide event.