Diblin v. Murphy
The Superior Court of New York City
■ Tins was an action on the case, tried before Saotjfoed, J., on the 4th of January, 1849. At the trial the plaintiff proved that while crossing the Third avenue at Twenty-sixth street, in this city, she was knocked down by the horses attached to an omnibus, and run over by the omnibus. Her right arm was fractured in two places, and she was laid up for nine weeks.
Read the full summary
■ Tins was an action on the case, tried before Saotjfoed, J., on the 4th of January, 1849. At the trial the plaintiff proved that while crossing the Third avenue at Twenty-sixth street, in this city, she was knocked down by the horses attached to an omnibus, and run over by the omnibus. Her right arm was fractured in two places, and she was laid up for nine weeks. At that time she was seventy-two years old, and before the injury she could earn two dollars a week, but since has been unable to earn any thing. It was proved she would never be likely to recover the full use of her arm. The…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court. Oakley, Ch. J.
There is evidently nothing in the points of law presented by the defendant. The only question in the case relates to the damages.
We are certainly inclined to think the damages given were too great. There was nothing to show an aggravated case *21against the driver; and there was evidence on both sides as to the point whether the driver was guilty of negligence, or whether the occurrence was owing to the plaintiff’s own carelessness.
We are satisfied that the verdict ought to have been considerably less; and the amount is so much more than it should have been, as to…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Holmes v. . JonesNew York Court of Appeals · 1890
- Craig v. CookSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1881
- Hill v. NewmanIndiana Supreme Court · 1874
- Davey v. DaveyNew York Supreme Court · 1898
- Shaw v. Boston & Worcester RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1857