Akersloot v. Second Avenue Railroad

Superior Court of New York

Akersloot v. Second Avenue Railroad

15 N.Y.S. 864, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 166

CourtThe Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo

DecidedAugust 27, 1891

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 15 N.Y.S. 864 (Akersloot v. Second Avenue Railroad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering The Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo 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, 15 N.Y.S. 864, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 166 (superctny 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

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 certain 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. All concur.

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

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 certain 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. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 N.Y.S. 864, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 166, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/akersloot-v-second-avenue-railroad-superctny-1891.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack