Case Name: STEVENS v. UNION RY. CO. OF NEW YORK
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1902-11-14
Citations: 78 N.Y.S. 624
Docket Number: 
Parties: STEVENS v. UNION RY. CO. OF NEW YORK.
Judges: Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and McLAUGHLIN, PATTERSON, O’BRIEN, and LAUGHLIN, JJ.
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 78
Pages: 624–626

Head Matter:
(75 App. Div. 602.)
STEVENS v. UNION RY. CO. OF NEW YORK.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
November 14, 1902.)
1. Street Railways — Personal Injuries — Meeting oe Cars — Negligence.
In an action for the death of plaintiffs intestate, the evidence showed that deceased, on alighting' from a west-hound trolley ear at a place much frequented by pedestrians, passed around the rear of the car, and attempted to cross the opposite track, and in so doing was struck and killed by an east-bound car running at full speed, and giving no warning of its approach. Held, that his death was caused by the negligence of the motorman in charge of the east-bound car.
2. Suit by Administratrix — Damages for Death of Intestate — Sufficiency.
A verdict of $10,000 in favor of an administratrix is full compensation for the death of the intestate; he being 35 years of age, earning $12 a week as a milk driver, and leaving, besides his widow, two daughters, aged 9 and 12 years, respectively.
Van Brunt, P. J., and McLaughlin, J., dissenting.
Appeal from trial term, New York county.
Action by Augusta Stevens, as administratrix of John Stevens, deceased, against the Union Railway Company of New York. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, and an order denying a motion for a new trial, defendant appeals.
Modified.
Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and McLAUGHLIN, PATTERSON, O’BRIEN, and LAUGHLIN, JJ.
Charles F. Brown, for appellant.
Thomas J. O’Neill, for respondent.

Opinion:
O'BRIEN, J.
The action is to recover damages for the death of plaintiff's husband, who was killed opposite the entrance to the elevated railroad on 138th street, between Willis and Alexander avenues, on the early morning of September 9, 1901, by an east-bound trolley car of the defendant, as he was proceeding to the south side of the street after having alighted from a west-bound car which stopped at that point for the purpose of transferring passengers to the elevated railroad. Although the deceased, as testified, left the west-bound car before it had quite come to a stop, that car did stop opposite the entrance of the elevated station, and passengers alighted therefrom; and the motorman of the west-bound car admitted that he had observed that car coming to a stop, and had slackened his speed, and was half clear of the car when he released the power, and then it was too late to avoid running over the plaintiff's intestate, who came from directly behind the west-bound car, and had reached the north rail of the east-bound track. It was further testified that the east-bound car approached without warning, and did not stop until it had passed some 40 or 45 feet beyond the place where the man was crossing. Upon these facts, we think the case of Pelletreau v. Railroad Co., 74 App. Div. 195, 77 N. Y. Supp. 386, is controlling. In both cases the accident occurred upon a street which was much frequented by pedestrians, and the evidence here, as in the Pelletreau Case, tends to show that, when passing behind one car which had stopped at the crossing, the passenger was struck by a car coming on the other track in the opposite direction, and the motorman failed to slacken its speed or to give warning of its approach.
The damages here awarded, however, we think are excessive. The deceased was 35 years of age, and received a salary of $12 a week as a milk driver, and left, besides his widow, two daughters, aged 9 and 12 years, respectively. Under the circumstances, we think that for the pecuniary loss, as shown by the evidence, a verdict of $10,000 would be fully compensatory. Our conclusion, therefore, is that, upon the plaintiff's giving a stipulation reducing the verdict to that amount, the judgment, as modified, should be affirmed, without costs; and, upon failure to give such a stipulation, the judgment and order appealed from should be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.
PATTERSON and LAUGHLIN, JJ., concur.