Eichholz v. Niagara Falls Hydraulic Power & Manufacturing Co.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Appeal by the defendant, The Niagara Falls Hydraulic Power and Manufacturing Company, from a judgment of the. Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiffs, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Niagara on the 2lst day of September, 1900, upon the verdict of a jury for $6,000, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s -office- on the 21st day of September, .1900, denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.
Read the full summary
Appeal by the defendant, The Niagara Falls Hydraulic Power and Manufacturing Company, from a judgment of the. Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiffs, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Niagara on the 2lst day of September, 1900, upon the verdict of a jury for $6,000, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s -office- on the 21st day of September, .1900, denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial made upon the minutes. The action was commenced .on the 6th day of January, 1899, by said John Eiehholz, to recover damages alleged to have been sus: tained by him on the…
1DissentSpring, J.
I think it was error for the court to permit the jury to consider as an element of damages the fact that the plaintiff was suffering from *451diabetes, as such, damages did not “ necessarily and immediately flow from the injury,” and are not, therefore, covered by the general allegations of the complaint setting forth the injuries sustained. (Kleiner v. Third Avenue Railroad Co., 162 N. Y. 193, 200; Lewin v. Lehigh Valley R. R. Co., 66 App. Div. 409, and the cases there cited.) For this reason I dissent from the opinion of the court below, and believe a new trial should be granted.
Judgment and…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Kleiner v. . Third Avenue R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1900
- Lewin v. Lehigh Valley RailroadAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1901