Case Name: ZAMPELLI v. NEW YORK CITY RY. Co. (two cases)
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1907-06-27
Citations: 105 N.Y.S. 109
Docket Number: 
Parties: ZAMPELLI v. NEW YORK CITY RY. Co. (two cases).
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 105
Pages: 109–110

Head Matter:
(55 Misc. Rep. 213)
ZAMPELLI v. NEW YORK CITY RY. Co. (two cases).
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
June 27, 1907.)
Carriers—Action for Injuries—Evidence—Sufficiency.
In an action by the wife for injuries sustained in attempting to board a street car, and in an action by the husband for consequential damages resulting to him from the injury, tried together, judgments in each case for defendant held to be against the evidence.
Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Third District.
Two actions, one by Fiorenza Zampelli and the other by Raffaele Zampelli, against the New York City Railway Company. From judgments for defendant in each case, plaintiffs appeal.
Judgment in each case reversed, and new trial ordered.
Argued before GIDDERSLEEVE, P. J., and SEABURY and PLATZEK, JJ. ,
Rosario Maggio, for appellants.
William E. Weaver, for respondent.

Opinion:
GIDDERSLEEVE, P. J.
These actions were tried together. The first is for personal injuries to the plaintiff, and the second is by the husband for consequential damages alleged to have resulted to him from the injury to his wife. The jury found for defendant in each case, and the plaintiff in each case appeals.
The plaintiff wife testified that when she was attempting to get on to the car, which was stationary, the conductor rang the bell, the car started up, and she was thrown to the ground and injured. Plaintiff's sister, a witness to the accident, while differing in some unimportant details from plaintiff, substantially corroborated her in all the essential features of the accident. Dr. Pine E. Bush testified to being called shortly after the accident to give medical aid to plaintiff, and states the nature of her injuries, which seem to have been severe. There is nothing inherently improbable in this testimony, and it is absolutely unimpeached, save by such inferences as may be drawn from the fact that no report of the accident was ever made to defendant by its conductor and motorman, and that plaintiff made no complaint until 98 days after the accident. No witnesses to the accident were called by defendant. It seems to us that the judgment in each case is against the evidence, and must be reversed.
Judgment in each case reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.