Willis v. Second Avenue Traction Co.
Willis v. Second Avenue Traction Co.
Opinion of the Court
There was no doubt as to the negligence of the defendant company, and it was not practicable to attribute contributory negligence to the plaintiff. There was nothing loft but to determine the amount of the damages to which the plaintiff was entitled. Of course this was exclusively for the jury. The amount of the verdict does not seem to be excessive, and upon another trial it might be much exceeded. While there may be some warrant for complaint against the charge on the subject of damages, we cannot say that it was positively erroneous. The one expression seriously complained of had better have been omitted, but it was immediately followed by an instruction that it was for the jury to fix some value for the pain and suffering.
The assignments of error are not sustained.
Judgment affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Aurelia E. Willis v. Second Avenue Traction Company, operating the Federal Street and Pleasant Valley Passenger Railway Company
- Cited By
- 6 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Neghgence—Street railways—Damages—Gharge of court. In an action against a street railway company to recover damages for personal injuries, where the plaintiff has not been guilty of contributory negligence, and the negligence of the defendant is undoubted, the Supreme Court will not reverse a judgment based upon a verdict moderate in amount, because the trial judge, after stating to the jury that plaintiff should be compensated for the time she had already lost by reason of the injury and her doctor’s bill, further charged that the plaintiff “ is entitled to such reasonable sum in addition to that, as you gentlemen think she ought to have, as a recompense to her, not a compensation, because you cannot compensate people for pain and suffering. No man would take the loss of an arm for any amount of money, but .... the law leaves it for you to judge .... what reasonable sum she ought to have.” An electric ear, in which plaintiff was a passenger, had stopped at a railroad crossing while a train was passing. The controller was out of order, and was being examined by the inspector, when the car suddenly started forward, and struck the train. Plaintiff was injured in endeavoring to jump from the car. Held, (1) that the company was negligent; (2) that plaintiff was not negligent. A person who, as a result of an injury, is compelled to employ a servant to do her household work is entitled to damages for the expense of keeping such servant.