Clark v. Brooklyn Heights Railroad
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Appeal from trial term, Kings county. Action by Patrick Clark against the Brooklyn Heights Railroad Company. From a judgment for plaintiff and an order denying defendant’s motion for new trial, it appeals. Affirmed. Leave to amend a complaint increasing the claim for damages from ten to twenty thousand dollars was asked after all the testimony was in.
Read the full summary
Appeal from trial term, Kings county. Action by Patrick Clark against the Brooklyn Heights Railroad Company. From a judgment for plaintiff and an order denying defendant’s motion for new trial, it appeals. Affirmed. Leave to amend a complaint increasing the claim for damages from ten to twenty thousand dollars was asked after all the testimony was in. It appeared from the testimony of the ambulance surgeon that plaintiff’s fall from his truck to the street produced fractured ribs, contusions on the head, and '“contusions on the whole chest.” He was taken to the hospital and to his home the…
1Opinion of the CourtWillard Bartlett, J.
This is an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff by reason of a collision between a truck which he was driving and one of the trolley cars of the defendant. Upon the argument of the appeal, no- question has been presented in behalf of the appellant as to the negligence of the defendant or the plaintiff’s freedom from contributory negligence. Only three points are argued in the brief, and these I will consider in order.
i. For the purpose of showing the extent of the plaintiff’s injuries, he was permitted by the trial court, in the presence of the jury, to…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Hatfield v. St. Paul & Duluth RailroadSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1885
- Zimmer v. Third Avenue RailroadAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1899
- Winner v. LathropNew York Supreme Court · 1893
- Zimmer v. Third Avenue RailroadAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1899
3Cited by1 opinion
- Curtis & Gartside Co. v. PribylSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1913