Flaherty v. N.Y., N.H. H.R.R. Co.

36 A. 1132, 19 R.I. 604, 1896 R.I. LEXIS 101
Supreme Court of Rhode Island·Decided July 24, 1896·No. Exceptions, c., No. 2160.·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

RESCRIPT.

We are of the opinion that the principles of decision inWhipple v. New York, New Haven Hartford Railroad Co.,Crandall v. New York, New Haven Hartford Railroad Co., ante, p. 587, 594, are decisive of the right of the plaintiff to maintain his action.

We think, however, that the damages awarded are excessive. The deceased was twenty-two years of age. The sums which the plaintiff had received from him had been almost wholly while he was living at home, and during his minority. We do not think that the probability of the continued receipt of moneys by the plaintiff from the deceased, when it is considered that he had attained his majority and left home, and that he was but one of a family of eight children, was sufficiently great to warrant so large a verdict as $5000. We therefore grant a new trial unless the plaintiff will consent to reduce the verdict to $3,500, and take judgment thereon for that amount. *Page 605

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

Flaherty v. N.Y., N.H. H.R.R. Co., 36 A. 1132, 19 R.I. 604, 1896 R.I. LEXIS 101 (R.I. 1896).

36 A. 1132 (Flaherty v. N.Y., N.H. H.R.R. Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Maly v. Lamerton
1925 OK 846 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1925)
Berwyn Mercantile Co. v. Ardmore Flour & Feed Co.
1924 OK 692 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1924)
Gilman v. G. W. Dart Hardware Co.
111 P. 550 (Montana Supreme Court, 1910)