Enches v. New York R.
Enches v. New York R.
Opinion of the Court
While the verdict in this case was probably excessive, we have not the means of correcting it. Were we to send the case back for another trial, it is quite possible it would be increased. This, however, would be no reason why we should not reverse the judgment, were there legal reasons why we should do so. A careful examination of the record fails to disclose any. An ingenious argument was made, based upon philosophical reasons, to show that the manner of the plaintiff’s fall was evidence that she must have attempted to leave the car while it was in motion, and that a ball thrown in a particular manner would rebound at a certain angle. This may be so, but a woman is not a ball, and her rebound is an unknown quantity. This theory, moreover, was not sustained by the evidence; and, in the face of positive testimony, theories are not of much value. We find no error in the rulings of the court, and it is not our province to correct the finding of the jury-
■Judgment affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- LAURA ENCHES v. NEW YORK ETC. R. CO.
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. Where, in an action to recover for personal injuries received by a passenger while alighting from a railroad train, the testimony is conflicting as to whether the train was in motion when the plaintiff started to descend from the ear, the,question of the plaintiff’s contributory negli- ■ gence is a question of fact to be submitted to the jury. 2'. In,such action, it was not error to refuse to charge the jury that the testimony of the plaintiff as to the distance she was thrown, the direction, swiftness and whirling motion of her fall, and the character of the injuries she received, was sufficient evidence that she had left-the car after it had started, and if believed by the jury she was not entitled to recover.