Case Name: Josephine G. Valentine, Resp't, v. The Broadway and Seventh Avenue R. R. Co., App'lt
Court: New York Court of Common Pleas
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1888-05-18
Citations: 16 N.Y. St. Rep. 602
Docket Number: 
Parties: Josephine G. Valentine, Resp’t, v. The Broadway and Seventh Avenue R. R. Co., App’lt.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 16
Pages: 602–603

Head Matter:
Josephine G. Valentine, Resp’t, v. The Broadway and Seventh Avenue R. R. Co., App’lt.
(New York Court of Common Pleas, General Term,
Filed May 18, 1888.)
1. Negligence—What does not necessarily constitute.
It is not necessarily negligence in law to get upon a street car while it is moving slowly.
2. Same—Award of damages for injuries occasioned by—When not disturbed.
Where in an action for injuries received through the alleged negligence of the defendant the evidence is such as to justify the submission of the case to the jury, and they are fairly charged upon the law, their determination will not be disturbed on the ground that the damages awarded are excessive if the amount is not so great as to indicate that they were influenced by passion or prejudice.
Root & Strong, for app’lt; Thomas Jackson, for resp’t:

Opinion:
Per Curiam
We do not think that we would be justified in disturbing this judgment upon the ground that the damages awarded by the jury to the plaintiff are excessive. The testimony indicates that the plaintiff received severe internal injuries which may; last for some years. The amount is not so great as to indicate passion or prejudice on the part of the jury, and we do not feel inclined to interfere with the judgment upon the ground of excessiveness of damages.
And we see no reason for reversing the judgment upon any other ground. The. case was submitted to the jury by the court in a charge which was particularly favorable to the defendant. There was sufficient evidence to take the case to the jury upon the questions of the defendant's negligence and the contributory negligence of the plaintiff. We would not be warranted in disturbing the decision of the jury upon the evidence as to these questions.
There was one exception to the charge of the court. It was to that part of the charge which instructed the jury that it is not necessarily negligence in law to get upon a street car while it is moving slowly. This was not error. Eppendorf v. Brooklyn City and Newtown R. R. Co., 69 N. Y., 195.
The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.