Hyperlawhypertext legal database Doherty v. Lord 55 N.Y. St. Rep. 160

← Cases

Doherty v. Lord

55 N.Y. St. Rep. 160 Court N.Y. City Ct. Decision date 1893-10-20 English

Delivered by *161 Ehrlich, Ch. J.

Contents

Majority

p. 160
John Doherty, Resp’t, v. Samuel Lord, Jr., et al., App’lts.
(City Court cf New York, General Term,
Filed October 20, 1893.)

Headnote

1. Jury—Bias.
A juror drawn in an action to recover damages alleged to have been sustained through defendant’s negligence, who states that there would have to be strong evidence to induce him to find for a plaintiS in a negligence case, as he had had litigations of that kind as a defendant, is - not indifferent and is properly excused.
2. Negligence—Evidence.
Under a complaint alleging special damages in not being able to attend to business and including as a part of the damages sought the expenses to which plaintiff was put in endeavoring to be healed of his injuries, evidence respecting such matters is admissible.
Appeal from judgment entered on verdict in favor of the plaintiff.
Henry Tompkins and E. W. S. Johnston, for app’lts; W. T. B. Milliken, for resp’t.

The complaint, with the inferences in its favor, sufficiently states a cause of action for negligently injuring tiie plaintiff, and one for which" the defendants are liable.

The case was tried on conflicting evidence, and the issues clearly submitted to the jury, and their finding, on the facts, being satisfactorily sustained, there is no reason to dispute the accuracy of the result arrived at.

The eleventh juror was not indifferent and was properly excused. He said there would have to be- strong evidence to induce him to find for a plaintiff in a negligence case, he had had litigations of that kind in which he had been defendant.

The plaintiff alleged special damage, in not being able to attend to his business for one month, and also claimed to recover his expenses in endeavoring to he healed of his injuries.

Under these allegations, the evidence respecting such matters was properly admissible.

The jury found that the injuries were the result of negligence on the part of the defendants and their servant, and that the plaintiff was free from fault.

We find no error in the rulings, and as the verdict is moderate in amount and justified by the facts, the judgment appealed from must be affirmed, with costs.

McCarthy, J., concurs.