Case Name: Harvey Lawrence vs. The Housatonic Railroad Company
Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Decision Date: 1860-10
Citations: 29 Conn. 390
Docket Number: 
Parties: Harvey Lawrence vs. The Housatonic Railroad Company.
Judges: 
Reporter: Connecticut Reports
Volume: 29
Pages: 390–391

Head Matter:
Harvey Lawrence vs. The Housatonic Railroad Company.
In a suit brought by the plaintiff for a personal injury received through the negligence of the defendants, the defendants claimed that the injury was originally slight and was aggravated by his neglect to take care of himself and to follow the advice of his physician; and they prayed the court to instruct the jury, that if the plaintiff did not regard the advice of his physician they had a right to infer that the injury was thereby aggravated, and that the plaintiff could recover for nothing after his own imprudence. The court did not so instruct the jury, but directed them that, if they should find a verdict for the plaintiff, he was entitled to recover full compensation for all the mental and physical injury which they should find on the evidenc* that he had sustained by reason of the defendants’ negligence. On a motion of the defendants for a new trial, it was held that this course was proper.
Action on the case for a personal injury caused by the negligence of the defendants.
On the trial to the jury, the plaintiff claimed that, in consequence of the injury, he had suffered great pain ever since, and that the injury was incurable. The defendants in reply offered evidence to prove, and claimed that they had proved, that the injury sustained by the plaintiff was very slight in its nature, and calculated to affect him for a few days only, and that if he had suffered great pain from the time of the injury to the time of trial as claimed, it was in consequence of his neglect to take care of himself after receiving the hurt, and of his repeated neglect to follow the advice of his physician; and they prayed the court to instruct the jury that if the plaintiff did not regard the advice of his physician, they had a right to infer that the injury was thereby aggravated, and that the plaintiff could - not recover for any thing after or following his own imprudence. The court did not so instruct them; but charged the jury that, in case they should find a verdict for the plaintiff, he was entitled to recover of the defendants full compensation for all the mental and physical injury which they should find upon the evidence that he had sustained, by reason of the negligence and carelessness of the defendants complained of in the declaration.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, and the defendants moved for a new trial.
Hubbard and Peet, in support of the motion.
G. C. Woodruff and Granger, contra.

Opinion:
The court advised that no new trial be granted.