Walsh v. New York City Railway Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Walsh v. New York City Railway Co.

93 N.Y.S. 552

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedApril 24, 1905

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 93 N.Y.S. 552 (Walsh v. New York City 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

Walsh v. New York City Railway Co., 93 N.Y.S. 552 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

LEVENTRITT, J.

The evidence called for submission to the jury of the issues of negligence, but did not warrant the inclusion of damage to the plaintiff’s wearing apparel as an element of recovery. That item of damage is supported only by evidence of the cost of the articles and their condition after the accident, and without any proof of their reasonable value, or the wear to which they had been subjected, their condition before the accident, or of. any details which could have enabled the jury to determine how much they had depreciated. This failure of proof defeats the judgment. Connolly v. Interurban St. Ry. Co. (Sup.) 86 N. Y. Supp. 213; Dunn v. Interurban St. Ry. Co. (Sup.) 86 N. Y. Supp. 260; Volkmar v. Third Ave. R. R. Co., 28 Misc. Rep. 141, 58 N. Y. Supp. 1021. As the verdict embraced compensation for damage to the plaintiff’s clothing as well as for injuries to her person, and as it cannot be said to what extent each item contributed to the result, the judgment cannot be modified, but must be reversed.

Judgment reversed, and a 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

LEVENTRITT, J.

The evidence called for submission to the jury of the issues of negligence, but did not warrant the inclusion of damage to the plaintiff’s wearing apparel as an element of recovery. That item of damage is supported only by evidence of the cost of the articles and their condition after the accident, and without any proof of their reasonable value, or the wear to which they had been subjected, their condition before the accident, or of. any details which could have enabled the jury to determine how much they had depreciated. This failure of proof defeats the judgment. Connolly v. Interurban St. Ry. Co. (Sup.) 86 N. Y. Supp. 213; Dunn v. Interurban St. Ry. Co. (Sup.) 86 N. Y. Supp. 260; Volkmar v. Third Ave. R. R. Co., 28 Misc. Rep. 141, 58 N. Y. Supp. 1021. As the verdict embraced compensation for damage to the plaintiff’s clothing as well as for injuries to her person, and as it cannot be said to what extent each item contributed to the result, the judgment cannot be modified, but must be reversed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

93 N.Y.S. 552, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walsh-v-new-york-city-railway-co-nyappterm-1905.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack