Ainsworth v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ainsworth v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad

162 A.D. 910, 146 N.Y.S. 1082

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 15, 1914

StatusPublished

This text of 162 A.D. 910 (Ainsworth v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ainsworth v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad, 162 A.D. 910, 146 N.Y.S. 1082 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Woodward, J.

(dissenting): I vote to affirm this judgment, and expressly dissent from that part of the decision which provides for a reduction of the amount of the recovery. In my judgment this is not a case calling for any such action by this court. The plaintiff’s intestate was a man of forty-two years of age, intelligent, fairly well educated, sober and industrious, a respected member of society. He was actually [911]*911earning at the time of his death $1,200 per annum, and had all the chances of a good American citizen to increase this amount indefinitely. He left a widow and two young children, the latter of the ages of twelve and seven years respectively. The breadwinner of this family is dead by the negligent act of the defendant. The actual financial loss possibly largely exceeds the recovery, and the loss to these children of the companionship, advice, counsel and guidance of a good father is difficult to overestimate. A jury of twelve men has fixed what I regal'd as a reasonable sum. The litigation has been protracted and expensive, and I do not think the alternative should be forced upon the plaintiff of accepting a reduction or the burden of a new trial. Howard, J., concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Woodward, J.

(dissenting): I vote to affirm this judgment, and expressly dissent from that part of the decision which provides for a reduction of the amount of the recovery. In my judgment this is not a case calling for any such action by this court. The plaintiff’s intestate was a man of forty-two years of age, intelligent, fairly well educated, sober and industrious, a respected member of society. He was actually [911]*911earning at the time of his death $1,200 per annum, and had all the chances of a good American citizen to increase this amount indefinitely. He left a widow and two young children, the latter of the ages of twelve and seven years respectively. The breadwinner of this family is dead by the negligent act of the defendant. The actual financial loss possibly largely exceeds the recovery, and the loss to these children of the companionship, advice, counsel and guidance of a good father is difficult to overestimate. A jury of twelve men has fixed what I regal'd as a reasonable sum. The litigation has been protracted and expensive, and I do not think the alternative should be forced upon the plaintiff of accepting a reduction or the burden of a new trial. Howard, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

162 A.D. 910, 146 N.Y.S. 1082, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ainsworth-v-new-york-central-hudson-river-railroad-nyappdiv-1914.