Levy v. Providence & Stonington S. S. Co.

S.D. New York

Levy v. Providence & Stonington S. S. Co.

123 F. 347, 1903 U.S. App. LEXIS 4906

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided April 17, 1903·Published

Opinion

COXE, Circuit Judge.

I can see no way to sustain the verdict, which was for nominal damages only. The view most favorable to the defendant is that the jury found that the conduct of the plaintiff in violating the rules of the boat warranted his removal, but that the defendant’s employés used unnecessary force.

There can be no pretense that the nominal sum of $i is sufficient to compensate the plaintiff for the injury occasioned by this excessive use of force, and for the indignity of the subsequent imprisonment of at least half an hour.

The verdict is inconsistent and illogical. The motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial is granted.

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

COXE, Circuit Judge.

I can see no way to sustain the verdict, which was for nominal damages only. The view most favorable to the defendant is that the jury found that the conduct of the plaintiff in violating the rules of the boat warranted his removal, but that the defendant’s employés used unnecessary force.

There can be no pretense that the nominal sum of $i is sufficient to compensate the plaintiff for the injury occasioned by this excessive use of force, and for the indignity of the subsequent imprisonment of at least half an hour.

The verdict is inconsistent and illogical. The motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial is granted.

Levy v. Providence & Stonington S. S. Co., 123 F. 347, 1903 U.S. App. LEXIS 4906 (S.D.N.Y. 1903).

Pincite

123 F. 347 (Levy v. Providence & Stonington S. S. Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.