Akersloot v. Second Avenue Railroad

The Superior Court of New York City

Akersloot v. Second Avenue Railroad

27 Jones & S. 555, 40 N.Y. St. Rep. 231

CourtThe Superior Court of New York City

DecidedSeptember 20, 1891

StatusPublished

This text of 27 Jones & S. 555 (Akersloot v. Second Avenue Railroad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering The Superior Court of New York City primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Akersloot v. Second Avenue Railroad, 27 Jones & S. 555, 40 N.Y. St. Rep. 231 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court.—Freedman, J.

Upon the facts disclosed at the trial the question of negligence on the part of the person having charge of .the infant-plaintiff at the time of the occurrence complained of, and the question of defendant’s negligence, were questions for the jury, and they were fully and fairly submitted under a charge which carefully guarded every right which the defendant had. There was no error in the charge or the refusals to charge otherwise, and the jury were expressly instructed to determine the case upon their own recollection of the evidence and not upon any allusion of the trial judge as to his recollection of [556]*556certain particulars. Nor can it be held that, under all the circumstances, the verdict of $12,000, for the loss of plaintiff’s leg, and the suffering connected with it, is excessive in amount. Upon the whole case no substantial reason appears why the verdict of the jury should be disturbed.

The judgment and order should be affirmed, with costs.

Dugro and Gildersleeve, JJ., concurred.

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

By the Court.—Freedman, J.

Upon the facts disclosed at the trial the question of negligence on the part of the person having charge of .the infant-plaintiff at the time of the occurrence complained of, and the question of defendant’s negligence, were questions for the jury, and they were fully and fairly submitted under a charge which carefully guarded every right which the defendant had. There was no error in the charge or the refusals to charge otherwise, and the jury were expressly instructed to determine the case upon their own recollection of the evidence and not upon any allusion of the trial judge as to his recollection of [556]*556certain particulars. Nor can it be held that, under all the circumstances, the verdict of $12,000, for the loss of plaintiff’s leg, and the suffering connected with it, is excessive in amount. Upon the whole case no substantial reason appears why the verdict of the jury should be disturbed.

The judgment and order should be affirmed, with costs.

Dugro and Gildersleeve, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 Jones & S. 555, 40 N.Y. St. Rep. 231, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/akersloot-v-second-avenue-railroad-nysuperctnyc-1891.