Case Name: Emma Donohue, Respondent, v. The Brooklyn, Queens County and Suburban Railroad Company, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1900
Citations: 53 A.D. 348
Docket Number: 
Parties: Emma Donohue, Respondent, v. The Brooklyn, Queens County and Suburban Railroad Company, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 53
Pages: 348–349

Head Matter:
Emma Donohue, Respondent, v. The Brooklyn, Queens County and Suburban Railroad Company, Appellant.
Complaints, made by a person injured, cf pains suffered, between the time of an accident and the Mai of an action for personal injuries, are incompetent— a general objection thereto is sufficient.
In an action to recover damages for “injuries to her head and limbs ” sustained by the plaintiff, evidence that she continued to complain of pains in her head from the time of the accident to the day of the trial, is inadmissible, and the error involved in its admission is available under a general objection, as there was no way in which such evidence could have been made admissible.
Appeal by the defendant, The Brooklyn, Queens County and Suburban Railroad Company, from a judgment of the County Court of Kings county in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Kings on the 27th day of January, 1900, upon the verdict of a jury for $1,136, and also from an order ■entered in said clerk’s office on the 6th day of February, 1900. denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.
Charles C. C la/rk, for the appellant.
8. D. Morris, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Jsuits, J.:
The action is brought to recover damages resulting from the negligence of the defendant. The plaintiff recovered $1,136 for bodily injuries and for " injuries to her head and limbs." She called her sister as a witness. The record shows that counsel for plaintiff put this question : " Has your sister continued to complain of pains in her head ever since the accident up to the present day ? [Objected to. Objection overruled. Defendant excepts.] A. Yes, sir." The question was plainly objectionable, for it called for •declarations of a party made subsequent to the injury. (Roche v. Brooklyn City & Newtowm R. R. Co., 105 N. Y. 294; Reed v. N. Y. Central R. R. Co., 45 id. 574; Olp v. Gardner, 48 Hun, 169 ; Ryan v. Porter Manufacturing Co., 57 id. 253.) There is no force in the respondent's contention that the general objection was insufficient, for if it had been taken or had been recast in specific terms, there was no way in which the question could have been made admissible. (Tozer v. N. Y. C. &. H. R. R. R. Co., 105 N. Y. 659 ; Silberstein v. Houston R. R. Co., 117 id. 293; Tooley v. Bacon, 70 id. 34.)
The claim for damages was largely based upon pains in the head and upon mental distress. After the plaintiff none was called as a witness save the sister and the attending physician, whose visits were few. It cannot be assumed that the evidence admitted was harmless.
The judgment and order should be reversed and a new trial granted.
All concurred.
Judgment and order reversed and a new trial granted, costs to abide the event.