Lennox v. Interurban Street Railway Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lennox v. Interurban Street Railway Co.

104 A.D. 110, 93 N.Y.S. 230

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 15, 1905

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 104 A.D. 110 (Lennox v. Interurban Street Railway Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lennox v. Interurban Street Railway Co., 104 A.D. 110, 93 N.Y.S. 230 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

Miller, J.:

The plaintiff has recovered a judgment for injuries sustained while á passenger of the defendant, by being thrown to the floor of one of its cars by the sudden starting of the car, which she claims resulted in a miscarriage, and produced a condition making it impossible for her to bear children. ' The court charged the jury: “ And likewise, with regard to the wife, as to the inability to bear a child, that is made an element of damages here by the pleadings, and it has been testified to,- and you will take that into consideration,-and determine what sum will compensate her because of such inability.” Further on the court said: “ Whatever damages you may award in that regard must be money damages — no sentiment.”. The defendant’s counsel specifically excepted to the court’s permitting the jury to consider inability to bear children as an element of damage, and also excepted to the charge as limited to money damages, as follows: “ I also except to what your Honor says with regard to the rule ,oft damages being the pecuniary loss for the inability, if there be any, to bear children. The Court: Well, would not a parent have the right to the earnings of a child during minority % ” The question of the learned court quoted suggests the theory upon which the court permitted the jury to speculate as to the pecuniary damages suffered for the loss of children unborn and unconceived. It is clear that such damages are too remote and speculative to constitute an element proper to be submitted to\a jury. (Butler v. M. R. Co., 143 N. Y. 417.) The respondent undertakes to sustain the judgment upon the theory that the defendant having permitted the evidence as to inability, to bear children to be received Without objection is precluded from insisting that it should not have been submitted to the jury as an element of damages. Undoubtedly a party cannot complain because of the admission of evidence received without objection, but that does not preclude him from insisting that the jury shall not be given an erroneous rule by which to measure damages, this even assuming that the evidence was not relevant to any issue as to the plaintiff’s injury, which we do not now decide.

[112]*112Tile- judgment and order appealed from must:, be reversed and a new trial granted, costs to abide the event.

Hirschberg, P. J., Woodward, Jenks and Rich, JJ., concurred.

. Judgment, and order reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide the event.

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

Miller, J.:

The plaintiff has recovered a judgment for injuries sustained while á passenger of the defendant, by being thrown to the floor of one of its cars by the sudden starting of the car, which she claims resulted in a miscarriage, and produced a condition making it impossible for her to bear children. ' The court charged the jury: “ And likewise, with regard to the wife, as to the inability to bear a child, that is made an element of damages here by the pleadings, and it has been testified to,- and you will take that into consideration,-and determine what sum will compensate her because of such inability.” Further on the court said: “ Whatever damages you may award in that regard must be money damages — no sentiment.”. The defendant’s counsel specifically excepted to the court’s permitting the jury to consider inability to bear children as an element of damage, and also excepted to the charge as limited to money damages, as follows: “ I also except to what your Honor says with regard to the rule ,oft damages being the pecuniary loss for the inability, if there be any, to bear children. The Court: Well, would not a parent have the right to the earnings of a child during minority % ” The question of the learned court quoted suggests the theory upon which the court permitted the jury to speculate as to the pecuniary damages suffered for the loss of children unborn and unconceived. It is clear that such damages are too remote and speculative to constitute an element proper to be submitted to\a jury. (Butler v. M. R. Co., 143 N. Y. 417.) The respondent undertakes to sustain the judgment upon the theory that the defendant having permitted the evidence as to inability, to bear children to be received Without objection is precluded from insisting that it should not have been submitted to the jury as an element of damages. Undoubtedly a party cannot complain because of the admission of evidence received without objection, but that does not preclude him from insisting that the jury shall not be given an erroneous rule by which to measure damages, this even assuming that the evidence was not relevant to any issue as to the plaintiff’s injury, which we do not now decide.

[112]*112Tile- judgment and order appealed from must:, be reversed and a new trial granted, costs to abide the event.

Hirschberg, P. J., Woodward, Jenks and Rich, JJ., concurred.

. Judgment, and order reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide the event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

104 A.D. 110, 93 N.Y.S. 230, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lennox-v-interurban-street-railway-co-nyappdiv-1905.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack