Majority
Headnote
1. Negligence—What does not necessarily constitute.We do not think that we would be justified in disturbing this judgment upon the ground that the damages awarded by the jury to the plaintiff are excessive. The testimony indicates that the plaintiff received severe internal injuries which may; last for some years. The amount is not so great as to indicate passion or prejudice on the part of the jury, and we do not feel inclined to interfere with the judgment upon the ground of excessiveness of damages.
And we see no reason for reversing the judgment upon any other ground. The. case was submitted to the jury by the court in a charge which was particularly favorable to
There was one exception to the charge of the court. It was to that part of the charge which instructed the jury that it is not necessarily negligence in law to get upon a street car while it is moving slowly. This was not error. Eppendorf v. Brooklyn City and Newtown R. R. Co., 69 N. Y., 195 .
The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.