Dawson v. City of Troy
New York Supreme Court
Appeal from circuit court, Rensselaer county. Action by Catherine Dawson against the city of Troy for injuries received tby a fall on a sidewalk of the defendant city. The facts of the case are fully .stated in the dissenting opinion of Landón, J.
1Opinion of the CourtLearned, P. J.
In Strohm v. Railroad Co., 96 N. Y. 305, the witness jhad testified that the plaintiff’s condition was very likely to be permanent. The objection was made to the words “very likely,” as speculative. The witness then said that such a patient might develop epilepsy, etc. The court held that this was too speculative. In the present case the doctor testified: “She will very likely recover in time. ” “It will probably take until a change of life. ” This testimony had just that character of probability which the court held to be improper in the Strohm Case. But, furthermore, the doctor did not…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- H.M. Filer v. . New York Central R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1872
3Cited by14 opinions
- Rugenstein v. OttenheimerOregon Supreme Court · 1914
- Ridley v. City and County of San FranciscoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1969
- Curry v. City of BuffaloNew York Supreme Court · 1890
- Merz v. City of BrooklynNew York City Court · 1890
- Kennedy v. Mayor of New YorkNew York Supreme Court · 1896
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.