Case Name: Abram Fox, Respondent, v. The Brooklyn City Railroad Co., Appellant
Court: Brooklyn City Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1894-02
Citations: 7 Misc. 285
Docket Number: 
Parties: Abram Fox, Respondent, v. The Brooklyn City Railroad Co., Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 7
Pages: 285–286

Head Matter:
Abram Fox, Respondent, v. The Brooklyn City Railroad Co., Appellant.
(City Court of Brooklyn—General Term,
February, 1894.)
In an action for injuries claimed to have been caused by defendant’s negligence, there was evidence tending to show that while plaintiff was riding on the front platform of one of defendant’s cars the driver thereof drove the car against a wagon standing across the track and about to enter a stable, whereby plaintiff was thrown off and injured. Held, that this justified a finding of negligence on the part of defendant.
Where the injuries complained of consisted of an injury to plaintiff’s side and a serious injury to his foot, causing loss of sensation and a partial loss of motion, and he was confined thereby to his house for six weeks and rendered unable to do hard work, a verdict for §3,500 is not excessive.
Appeal from judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered upon verdict for $2,500, and from order denying motion for a new trial on the minutes.
Action to recover for injuries sustained by plaintiff by reason of the alleged negligence of the defendant.
Morris & WMtehouse, for appellant.
M. L. Towns, for respondent.

Opinion:
Van Wyck, J.
After critical examination and careful consideration of all the evidence in this case, we see no reason to disturb the verdict, which seems to be fully justified on the questions both of negligence and of the amount of damages. According to the testimony which the jurors seem to have credited, as they had á right to do, it appears that the driver of defendant's car (upon which plaintiff was a passenger standing on the front platform) drove the car against a wagon standing across the track and about to enter a stable over the sidewalk. The collision threw plaintiff upon the street; his side was hurt, his foot was seriously and permanently injured, there being a complete loss of sensation from the ankle to the toes, and a partial loss of motion. His foot was exposed to the jury, and the physicians tested the loss of sensation in their presence. He was confined to his home for six weeks and suffered great pain, was under the care of the physician for a considerable time, and was unable to do hard work at the time of the trial.
The judgment and order must be affirmed, with costs.
Osborne, J., concurs.
Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.