Hennessy v. District of Columbia

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Hennessy v. District of Columbia

19 D.C. 220

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 23, 1890

DocketNos. 26,661

StatusPublished

This text of 19 D.C. 220 (Hennessy v. District of Columbia) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District of Columbia Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hennessy v. District of Columbia, 19 D.C. 220 (D.C. 1890).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice James

delivered the opinion of the Court:

This cause is appealed on a case stated. The plaintiff recovered a judgment for $3,000 for injuries suffered by means of the defendant’s negligence in allowing a dangerous defect in a sidewalk to remain unrepaired and unguarded. The verdict was evidently based upon a finding that the injury to the plaintiff ?s arm was permanent, and that this extent of the injury was the natural consequence of the original injury. We find that the physician who ■attended the plaintiff testified that it needed not to be permanent ; that the plaintiff refused to follow his instructions to use her arm, and that such use would have made it more serviceable. We are convinced by an examination ■of the evidence that the plaintiff herself caused a large part of the results of "the injury shown at the trial, and that the verdict is therefore excessive in contemplation of law. If a remittitur of $1,500 is entered the judgment will stand affirmed ; otherwise a new trial will he ordered.

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

Mr. Justice James

delivered the opinion of the Court:

This cause is appealed on a case stated. The plaintiff recovered a judgment for $3,000 for injuries suffered by means of the defendant’s negligence in allowing a dangerous defect in a sidewalk to remain unrepaired and unguarded. The verdict was evidently based upon a finding that the injury to the plaintiff ?s arm was permanent, and that this extent of the injury was the natural consequence of the original injury. We find that the physician who ■attended the plaintiff testified that it needed not to be permanent ; that the plaintiff refused to follow his instructions to use her arm, and that such use would have made it more serviceable. We are convinced by an examination ■of the evidence that the plaintiff herself caused a large part of the results of "the injury shown at the trial, and that the verdict is therefore excessive in contemplation of law. If a remittitur of $1,500 is entered the judgment will stand affirmed ; otherwise a new trial will he ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 D.C. 220, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hennessy-v-district-of-columbia-dc-1890.