Crawford v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad

The Superior Court of New York City

Crawford v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad

23 Jones & S. 255

The Superior Court of New York City·Decided January 3, 1888·Published

Opinions

By the Court.—Freedman, J.

Upon the present appeal but a single exception has been urged, and that relates to the submission to the jury of the question of damages for future pain and future disability.

The only testimony in the case relating in any way to plaintiff’s injuries, was given.by the plaintiff herself, and the testimony thus given contained a description of the injuries sustained, of past suffering and her present condition. Her injuries did not involve a loss of limb, or other loss of so marked a character that from a bare exhibition of it an inference of permanency could be drawn, and no proof was given showing or tending to show that there was any reasonable certainty of future pain or future disability. All this was left to mere conjecture. It was therefore error in the learned judge who presided at the trial to submit the question of future pain and future disability to the jury with power [258] to award damages therefor. Mosher v. Russell, 44 Hun 12.

The judgment and order should be reversed and a new trial ordered with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

Ingraham, J., concurred.

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

By the Court.—Freedman, J.

Upon the present appeal but a single exception has been urged, and that relates to the submission to the jury of the question of damages for future pain and future disability.

The only testimony in the case relating in any way to plaintiff’s injuries, was given.by the plaintiff herself, and the testimony thus given contained a description of the injuries sustained, of past suffering and her present condition. Her injuries did not involve a loss of limb, or other loss of so marked a character that from a bare exhibition of it an inference of permanency could be drawn, and no proof was given showing or tending to show that there was any reasonable certainty of future pain or future disability. All this was left to mere conjecture. It was therefore error in the learned judge who presided at the trial to submit the question of future pain and future disability to the jury with power [258] to award damages therefor. Mosher v. Russell, 44 Hun 12.

The judgment and order should be reversed and a new trial ordered with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

Ingraham, J., concurred.

Crawford v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad, 23 Jones & S. 255 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1888).

Pincite

23 Jones & S. 255 (Crawford v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.