Case Name: Julius Jonas, Respondent, v. The Interurban Street Railway Co., Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1904-12
Citations: 45 Misc. 579
Docket Number: 
Parties: Julius Jonas, Respondent, v. The Interurban Street Railway Co., Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 45
Pages: 579–580

Head Matter:
Julius Jonas, Respondent, v. The Interurban Street Railway Co., Appellant.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term,
December, 1904.)
Evidence of damage through inability to follow vocation — Such damage must proceed solely from plaintiff’s personal services.
Evidence of damage to plaintiff through inability to attend to his vocation, should be limited to earnings which would have proceeded entirely from plaintiff’s own labor. It is reversible error to admit testimony as to losses of a business conducted by plaintiff with capital, servants and associates.
Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the City Court of the city of New York, entered in favor of the plaintiff upon the verdict of a jury, and also from an order denying’ defendant’s motion for a new trial.
Henry A. Robinson (Bayard II; Ames and F. Angelo Gaynor, of counsel), for appellant.
Weil, Wolf & Kramer (I. II. Kramer, of counsel), for ■ respondent.

Opinion:
Freedman, P. J.
In an action to recover' damages for personal injuries to plaintiff, under the allegations of his complaint that he " was and is still prevented from attending to his vocation and will for a long time be unable to attend to his vocation properly, as he is informed and verily believes, and was confined to his home for upwards of three weeks," plaintiff was permitted to testify to loss of profits from .his business. This testimony was duly objected and excepted to. Evidence of this kind is admissible only where the earnings proceed entirely from the plaintiff's labor. But in the present case it appeared from plaintiff's own testimony that the profits of his business did not entirely depend upon his own personal services, but involved the use of his store, an expensive truck, and a daily capital of $135 to $150, in addition to the labor of two hired men, one of whom he called his " associate in business." The admission of this evidence constituted reversible error under the authorities. Johnson v. Manhattan R. Co., 52 Hun, 111; Blate v. Third Ave. R. R. Co., 29 App. Div. 388; Masterton v. Village of Mt. Vernon, 58 N. Y. 391; Hewlett v. Brooklyn Heights R. R. Co., 63 App. Div. 426.
The judgment and order must be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.
Bischoff and Gildersleeve, JJ., concur.
Judgment and order reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.