man was standing In the street beside the car when he first saw him. A process server testified that he could not find “John Smith, motorman,” and that the names given as witnesses were all false. Three physicians testified for defendant that they examined the man, and found slight wounds, and saw that his condition had grown much worse at the time of the trial, but did not think this due to the injuries he received, but attributed it to consumption, which is a germ disease; that they had found no injury to his lungs when the accidént occurred, and the injuries they found would not produce consumption; that there is no question but he had tuberculosis at the trial; and that this is a germ disease, and is never caused by external violence.
In charging the jury, the court said: “If you find that he is now suffering or has been suffering from tuberculosis, the defendant, under the evidence in the case, is not responsible therefor, because the evidence is undisputed, and it is not claimed by the plaintiff that tuberculosis would produce the condition which he has now, because it is admitted that tuberculosis is a germ disease, and it is a fact testified to that it never comes from traumatic injury, or injury which is induced by violence.” And he further charged that, “if you find that the present condition of the plaintiff is tuberculosis, then, of course, under the evidence in the case, that cannot be considered the result of the injury which was received at the time of the accident. If, however, you find that he was suffering from some other trouble which is not tuberculosis, but which is the direct result of thé injury which was received at the time of the accident, he is entitled to such sum as you may find * * * will properly compensate him.” After a verdict was rendered for $6,000 in plaintiff’s favor, a motion was made to set it aside upon all the grounds stated in section 999 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the court said: “I will entertain a motion as to excessive damages.” Argument was heard on that motion, and thereafter the court granted the motion to set aside the verdict, saying:. “The evidence shows almost conclusively that the' plaintiff is now suffering from tuberculosis. There is no claim made that tuberculosis could be produced by the injury, and the uncontradicted evidence, as it stands, is that tuberculosis cannot be produced by such injuries, but is a germ disease. It-is quite clear that the jury must have based their verdict upon the statement that plaintiff’s present condition is due to injuries received at the time of the accident, and such result, to my mind, is clearly against the weight of evidence.” From the order thus entered, this appeal is taken.
Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J„ and HATCH, McRAUGHLIN, PATTERSON, and O’BRIEN, JJ.Daniel Daly, for appellant.
Charles F. Brown, for respondent.
The jury having found, upon satisfactory evidence, that the defendant was negligent, the plaintiff was entitled to recover his damages, which would include his pain and suffering, impairment of his general health, and such injuries as were both temporary and permanent. With respect to the latter, there were two theories which were fairly fought out upon the trial—one, advanced by the plaintiff, that his impaired health and physical condition, which were conceded, were due directly to the accident; and the other, advanced by the defendant, that the plaintiff at the time of the trial was suffering from tuberculosis, which, being a germ disease, could not be regarded as a direct result of the accident. The court fully protected the defendant; in effect stating to the jury in the course of the charge that, if they found that the plaintiff was suffering at the time of the trial from tuberculosis, he could not for that disease recover anything of the defendant. The learned trial judge, in setting aside the verdict, did so, as appears from his opinion, upon the ground that the preponderance of