Case Name: Montgomery v. Long Island R. Co.
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1890-02-12
Citations: 8 N.Y.S. 811
Docket Number: 
Parties: Montgomery v. Long Island R. Co.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 8
Pages: 811–811

Head Matter:
Montgomery v. Long Island R. Co.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.
February 12, 1890.)
Evidence—Experts—Physicians.
In an action for personal injuries, it is competent for a physician to testify that the injuries were such as could be produced by a fall, and that they were permanent.
Appeal from circuit court, Kings county.
Action by Jane Montgomery against the Long Island Railroad Company for injuries received while a passenger on defendant’s cars. There was a verdict for the plaintiff for $3,000. From the judgment rendered thereon defendant appeals. For a former report on an appeal from an order granting a new trial, see 6 FT. Y. Supp. 178.
Argued before Barnard, P. J., and Dykman, J.
Hinsdale & Sprague, for appellant. Dailey & Bell, for respondent.

Opinion:
Barnard, P. J.
The plaintiff gave evidence tending to show that the defendant suddenly started its horse-car upon which she was a passenger, as she was about getting off, and threw her down, and injured her severely. She testified to the injuries she had received. An expert witness was asked whether such injuries could be produced by a fall, and whether they were permanent. The evidence was objected to, and admitted. The ruling was accurate and proper. The fact that the precise injury had been occasioned by the fall was proper. The surgeon aided the testimony by showing that the injury was such as a sudden fall would produce. The permanent nature of the injuries could be proven by skilled men who knew the fact. Such witnesses must not speculate, but must be able to testify to a result reasonably certain to happen from the injury. There was no such testimony as was condemned in the case of Strohm v. Railroad Co., 96 N. Y. 305. The surgeon testified that the injuries were permanent.
The verdict is not against the evidence. This question was passed upon when the appeal from the order granting a new trial was considered and decided by this court. The judgment should therefore be affirmed, with costs.