Case Name: Lynch v. Third-Ave. R. Co.
Court: New York Superior Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1891-02-02
Citations: 13 N.Y.S. 236
Docket Number: 
Parties: Lynch v. Third-Ave. R. Co.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 13
Pages: 236–238

Head Matter:
Lynch v. Third-Ave. R. Co.
(Superior Court of New York City, General Term.
February 2, 1891.)
Special Damages—Pleading—Evidence.
Upon the trial oí an action for injuries alleged to have been received through negligence of defendant, a witness was asked: “Is the injury which she [plaintiff] has received to her back and spine, in your opinion, a permanent injury? ” Meld, that an objection, on the ground that no permanent injury to the person was pleaded as special damage in the complaint, was properly overruled. Ingraham, 3., dissenting.
Appeal from jury term.
Action by Mary Lynch against the Third-Avenue Railroad Company to recover damages for injuries alleged to have been sustained through the negligence of the defendant’s servants. Defendant appeals from a judgment for plaintiff entered on the verdict of a jury, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial. The complaint alleged “that on the 18th day of May, 1889, the plaintiff, at the corner of Fifty-Ninth street and Third avenue, on the line of the defendant’s said road, signaled the driver of one of the cars of the defendant to stop, plaintiff intending to get aboard the said car at the said place for the purpose of going to her home at the corner of 103d street and Third avenue, in said city, as a passenger. That the said driver brought the car to a standstill, and as the plaintiff was about to get aboard the said car, having taken hold 'of the railings on each side of the platform, and having one foot upon the said platform at the rear end of said car, the conductor" thereof, an employe of said defendant, gave the signal, and the car started, and at the same time the plaintiff called to the said conductor, he at the same instant seized the plaintiff by both wrists, telling her, to < come on,’ and the car having been started by the negligence and carelessness and inattention of the defendant, its agents, servants, and employes, the plaintiff was dragged behind the said car for a long distance, being at all times herself free.from any negligence or carelessness whatsoever; and that by reason of the carelessness of the said defendant, its agents, servants, and employes, this plaintiff sustained serious damage both to her person and to her property, and was obliged to and actually did incur liability for surgical and other treatment and attendance in seeking to restore herself of her injury, to her-damage, five thousand dollars.”
Argued before Sedgwick, 0. J., and Fbeedman and Ingeaham, JJ.
William H. Cohen, for appellant. Henry W. Bates, for respondent.

Opinion:
Freedman, J.
The action was brought to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff in attempting to get on board of one of the cars of the defendant. Upon the testimony of the plaintiff the case was one for the jury, and the trial judge properly refused to dismiss the complaint or to direct a verdict. There is no exception to the charge, or to any refusal to charge otherwise. None of the exceptions taken to the admission or exclusion of evidence is, under all the circumstances, of sufficient importance to call for reversal, and upon the whole case no valid reason appears for disturbing the verdict. The judgment and order should be affirmed, with costs.
Sedgwick, G. J., concurs.