Case Name: GEORGE C. AKERSLOOT, an Infant, by Guardian, etc., Respondent v. THE SECOND AVENUE RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant
Court: New York Superior Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1891-09-20
Citations: 27 Jones & S. 555
Docket Number: 
Parties: GEORGE C. AKERSLOOT, an Infant, by Guardian, etc., Respondent v. THE SECOND AVENUE RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the Superior Court of the city of New York
Volume: 59
Pages: 555–556

Head Matter:
GEORGE C. AKERSLOOT, an Infant, by Guardian, etc., Respondent v. THE SECOND AVENUE RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant.
Negligence—Excessive damages,
Held, in this case,- that, upon the facts disclosed, the question of negligence on the part of the person having charge of the infant-plaintiff, and of defendant’s negligence, were questions for the jury, and were fully and fairly submitted under a charge which carefully guarded every right of .the defendant. Under all the circumstances the verdict of $12,000, for the loss of plaintiff’s leg, and the suffering connected therewith, is not excessive in amount.
Before Freedman, Dugro and Gildersleeve, JJ.
Decided September 20, 1891.
Appeal from judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff upon the verdict of a jury, and from order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial.
Merrill & Rogers, for appellant.
Franklin Bartlett, for respondent.

Opinion:
By the Court.—Freedman, J.
Upon the facts disclosed at the trial the question of negligence on the part of the person having charge of .the infant-plaintiff at the time of the occurrence complained of, and the question of defendant's negligence, were questions for the jury, and they were fully and fairly submitted under a charge which carefully guarded every right which the defendant had. There was no error in the charge or the refusals to charge otherwise, and the jury were expressly instructed to determine the case upon their own recollection of the evidence and not upon any allusion of the trial judge as to his recollection of certain particulars. Nor can it be held that, under all the circumstances, the verdict of $12,000, for the loss of plaintiff's leg, and the suffering connected with it, is excessive in amount. Upon the whole case no substantial reason appears why the verdict of the jury should be disturbed.
The judgment and order should be affirmed, with costs.
Dugro and Gildersleeve, JJ., concurred.