Case Name: John F. Klumpp, Respondent, v. The New York Central Railroad Company, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1917-07-03
Citations: 179 A.D. 279
Docket Number: 
Parties: John F. Klumpp, Respondent, v. The New York Central Railroad Company, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 179
Pages: 279–281

Head Matter:
John F. Klumpp, Respondent, v. The New York Central Railroad Company, Appellant.
Fourth Department,
July 3, 1917.
Railroad — negligence — injury to brakeman by catching foot in guard rail — question of fact whether evidence of plaintiff or of defendant’s engineer was more probable — charge as to negligence of engineer — verdict not excessive.
In an action by a brakeman employed by the defendant to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant’s engineer, held, that it was a fair question of fact whether the evidence of the plaintiff or the engineer was the more probable.
The mere fact that both were interested, or that the plaintiff may be more interested than the engineer, does not justify setting aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence.
Where the jury were told that unless the engineer was negligent no recovery could be had and the plaintiff expressly disclaimed that, if the accident were solely due to the catching of his foot in the guard rail, there could be no recovery, after the refusal so to charge, such refusal does not constitute reversible error.
The plaintiff being a young and vigorous man, a verdict for $20,000 for the loss of earnings and also for the loss of a leg and the pain and suffering, is not excessive.
De Angelis, J., dissented, with memorandum.
Appeal by the defendant, The New York Central 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 Erie on the 16th day of January, 1917, upon the verdict of a jury for $20,000, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 13th day of December, 1916, denying defendant’s motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.
Hoyt & Spratt [Maurice C. Spratt and H. W. Huntington of counsel], for the appellant.
Hamilton Ward, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Kruse, P. J.:
1. It seems to me that it is a fair question of fact whether the evidence of the plaintiff or the engineer was the more probable. The mere fact that both were interested, or that the plaintiff may be more interested in the result of the litigation than the engineer, hardly justifies setting aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence. The jury and the trial judge had the advantage of seeing and hearing both of them, which we have not.
2. As to the charge, I think it very clear that the jury were told that unless the engineer was negligent no recovery could be had. That is the burden of the entire charge, and the plaintiff expressly disclaimed that if the accident were solely due to the catching of his foot in the guard rail, that there could be no recovery, after the refusal so to charge. I think such refusal does not, under the circumstances, constitute reversible error.
3. Neither am I convinced that the verdict is excessive. If it were merely the loss of earnings alone, for which the plaintiff could recover, perhaps the verdict would be too large, but the pain and suffering, and the maimed and crippled condition of this active, young and vigorous man should not be lost sight of. The loss of a leg, even if there were no diminution in earnings at all, would in itself warrant a substantial recovery.
All concurred, except De Angelis, J., who dissented in a memorandum.