Hyperlawhypertext legal database Cannon v. Brooklyn City R. 35 N.Y.S. 1039

← Cases

Cannon v. Brooklyn City R.

35 N.Y.S. 1039 Court Brooklyn City Ct. Decision date 1895-11-25 English

Contents

Majority

p. 1039
(14 Misc. Rep. 400.)
CANNON v. BROOKLYN CITY R. CO.
(City Court of Brooklyn, General Term.
November 25, 1895.)

Headnote

Personal- Injuries—Damages.
A verdict of $10,000, in an action by a husband for personal injuries to his wife, is not excessive, where she was, at the time of the accident, a strong, healthy woman 38 years old, and since then has been, and always will be, a physical wreck.
Appeal from trial term.
Action by Michael G-. Cannon against the Brooklyn City Railroad Company for personal injuries to his wife. From a judgment entered on a verdict in favor of plaintiff, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Argued before CLEMENT, C. J., and VAN WYCK, J.
Morris & Whitehouse, for appellant.
Chas. J. Patterson, for respondent.

We have considered all the exceptions to which our attention has been called in the points of the appellant, and conclude that our decision on the appeal in the case of Annie Cannon against The Appellant, 29 N. Y. Supp. 722 , is conclusive as to the correctness of the rulings of the learned trial judge.

It is claimed that the verdict for $10,000 is excessive. The jury found, on conflicting testimony, that the wife of the plaintiff, just prior to her injury, was a strong, healthy woman, about 38 years of age, and that ever since the injury she has been a confirmed invalid; that her health will not improve, and that during her future life she will be a burden to her husband, and not a comfort; that she never can be a wife to him again. The future damages to the plaintiff are, in a certain sense, speculative; and yet the law leaves it to a jury to decide the amount, in actions of this kind, provided such damages are reasonably certain. The preponderance of evidence is with the plaintiff as to the good health of his wife prior to her injury, and it appears that at the date of trial she was a physical wreck, and will always so continue. The verdict, though large, does not seem to us, in view of the evidence, to be the result of passion, prejudice, or sympathy. Judgment and order denying new trial affirmed, with costs.