Case Name: Jeannie Mitchell, Respondent, v. The Broadway and Seventh Avenue Railroad Company, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1893-06
Citations: 77 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 387
Docket Number: 
Parties: Jeannie Mitchell, Respondent, v. The Broadway and Seventh Avenue Railroad Company, Appellant.
Judges: Present— O’Brien, Follett and Parker, JJ.
Reporter: Supreme Court Reports (Hun)
Volume: 77
Pages: 387–388

Head Matter:
Jeannie Mitchell, Respondent, v. The Broadway and Seventh Avenue Railroad Company, Appellant.
Personal injury from a street ea/t' — amount of the verdict.
In an action brought to recover damages for a personal injury received by a woman about twenty-seven years of age, through being run over by the defend-ant’s horse street car, the plaintiff recovered a verdict for §15,000.
The injury was a severe and permanent one; it did not appear that the trial was so conducted as to arouse prejudice or passion against the defendant, and the jury were instructed to return such a sum as would simply compensate the plaintiff for the injuries sustained.
Meld, that the judgment should not be disturbed on the ground that the verdict was excessive.
Appeal by tlie defendant, tbe Broadway and Seventh Avenue Railroad Company, from a judgment of tbe Supreme Court, entered in tbe office of tbe clerk of tbe city and county of New York on tbe 13th day of February, 1893, upon a verdict in favor of tbe plaintiff, rendered at tbe New York Circuit, and from an order denying tbe defendant’s motion for a new trial, made uoon tbe minutes.'
Tbe action was brought to recover damages for a personal injury suffered by tbe plaintiff, and alleged to have been caused by tbe negligence of tbe defendant, a street railroad company operating horse cars. Tbe evidence showed that tbe plaintiff, who was a woman about twenty-seven years of age, when attempting to cross Broadway, in New York city, at a street corner, was thrown down by tbe horses attached to one of tbe defendant’s cars, and that tbe car. passed over one of her legs, causing a severe and permanent injury. Tbe jury rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $15,000.
B. Hoot, for tbe appellant.
/S'. O. Baldnnvn,. for tbe respondent.

Opinion:
Per Curiam :
Tbe defendant concedes its liability for tbe injuries sustained by tbe plaintiff, and argues no exception but tbe one taken to tbe refusal of tbe trial court to set aside tbe verdict as excessive. Tbe evidence shows that tbe plaintiff was severely and permanently injured, has suffered great pain in the past, and that she will probably continue to suffer during life.
The testimony of the plaintiff and of her physicians as to the extent of her injuries and suffering, was not contradicted on the trial.
There is no evidence in the record which tends to show that the trial was conducted in a manner likely to arouse the sympathy, prejudices or passion of the jurors. The charge was temperate, and the jury was instructed to return such a sum as would simply compensate the plaintiff for the injuries sustained.
It appears that she necessarily expended about $1,000 in the employment of physicians and surgeons by reason of her injuries. While we regard the verdict as large, and should have been better satisfied had a less sum been awarded, we do not under the circumstances feel justified in setting it aside. Had the trial been so conducted as to arouse prejudice or passion against the defendant, we would be justified in ordering the damages to be reassessed, in case a reduction should not be assented to. But upon the whole record we think the power should not be exercised in this case, and that the judgment and order should be affirmed* with costs.
Present— O'Brien, Follett and Parker, JJ.
Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.