McNeill v. Interurban Street Railway Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

McNeill v. Interurban Street Railway Co.

92 N.Y.S. 767

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMarch 21, 1905

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 92 N.Y.S. 767 (McNeill v. Interurban Street Railway Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McNeill v. Interurban Street Railway Co., 92 N.Y.S. 767 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

O’GORMAN, J.

Upon the trial of this action brought to recover damages for personal injuries, the trial justice submitted to the jury the question of permanent injuries, to which the defendant excepted. An inspection of the record fails to disclose any evidence of perma[768]*768nent injuries. The attending physician, who was called as a witness, said he could tell with reasonable certainty whether the injuries were permanent; but he at no time stated that they were permanent, nor was he asked to do so. The alleged injury was a dislocated uterus, but mere proof of the existence of an injury not essentially permanent is insufficient evidence of permanency. There was therefore no basis for the instruction, and the defendant’s exception requires a reversal.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. All concur.

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

O’GORMAN, J.

Upon the trial of this action brought to recover damages for personal injuries, the trial justice submitted to the jury the question of permanent injuries, to which the defendant excepted. An inspection of the record fails to disclose any evidence of perma[768]*768nent injuries. The attending physician, who was called as a witness, said he could tell with reasonable certainty whether the injuries were permanent; but he at no time stated that they were permanent, nor was he asked to do so. The alleged injury was a dislocated uterus, but mere proof of the existence of an injury not essentially permanent is insufficient evidence of permanency. There was therefore no basis for the instruction, and the defendant’s exception requires a reversal.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 N.Y.S. 767, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcneill-v-interurban-street-railway-co-nyappterm-1905.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack