115 N.Y. 61, Griswold v. New York Cent. & H.R.R. Co.

Citation:115 N.Y. 61
Party Name:LIZZIE GRISWOLD, Respondent, v. THE NEW YORK CENTRAL AND HUDSON RIVER RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant.
Case Date:June 04, 1889
Court:New York Court of Appeals
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 61

115 N.Y. 61

LIZZIE GRISWOLD, Respondent,

v.

THE NEW YORK CENTRAL AND HUDSON RIVER RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant.

New York Court of Appeal

June 4, 1889

Argued May 1, 1889.

Page 62

COUNSEL

John H. Camp for appellant. The court erred in permitting Dr. Squires to answer the following question: 'I ask you what the result of such a fall, in your opinion, would be, or, of this condition, what result would be likely to follow; what would probably, from what you know of the condition of this woman, from the time this existed and from your examination, what is the probability of her recovery from this injury?' (Curtis v. R. & S. R. Co., 18 N.Y. 534-542; Strohm v. N.Y. L. E. & W. R. R. Co., 96 id. 305, 306; Tozer v. N.Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 105 id. 617-659; 6 N.Y. S. R. 447; 38 Hun, 100; Dawson v. City of Troy, 49 Hun, 322; Bailey v. Westcott, 16 N.Y. S. R. 671.) The court erred in permitting the witnesses Squires, Chapman and Lewis, to answer whether it was probable or whether they thought the plaintiff would recover. (Curtis v. R. & S. R. Co., 18 N.Y. 534-542; Strohm v. N.Y. L. E. & W. R. R. Co., 96 id. 305, 306; Tozer v. N.Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 105 id. 617-659; 6 N.Y. S. R. 447; 38 Hun, 100; Dawson v. City of Troy, 49 Hun, 322; Bailey v. Westcott, 16 N.Y. S. R. 671; Richman v. S. A. R. R. Co., 15 id. 928) The objection to the testimony of Doctors Chapman and Lewis was sufficient, though general. (Tozer v. N.Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 105 N.Y. 639.)

Isaac S. Signor for respondent. There was not only evidence on which the findings of the jury can be sustained, but the preponderance of evidence was largely in the respondent's favor, and the verdict is not against the weight of evidence, within the meaning of that term as used in the Code, and defined by the courts. (Cheeney v. N.Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 16 Hun, 415, 420; Betsinger v. Chapman, 24 Hun, 15, 17; Greaney v. L. I. R. R. Co., 101 N.Y. 419, 423; Vanderwald v. Olsen, 1 N.Y. S. R. 506.)

Page 63

The verdict is not excessive. (Harold v. N.Y. El. R. R. Co., 24 Hun, 184; Minck v. City of Troy, 19 id. 253, 257, 258; Bierbauer v. N.Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 15 id. 559, 564.) The question 'What is the probability of her recovery?' and other similar questions were proper. (Filer v. N.Y. C. R. R. Co., 49 N.Y. 42; Strohm v. N.Y. L. E. & W. R. R. Co., 96 id. 305; Turner v. City of Newburgh, 109 id. 309; Bateman v. N.Y. C. & H. R....

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP