49 N.Y. 42, Filer v. New York Cent. R. Co.
|Citation:||49 N.Y. 42|
|Party Name:||WILLIAM T. FILER, Respondent, v. THE NEW YORK CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant.|
|Case Date:||March 26, 1872|
|Court:||New York Court of Appeals|
Argued Feb. 26, 1872.
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
George G. Munger for the appellant. The evidence from Dr. Faling, as to a recurrence of the inflammation, was improperly admitted. (18 N.Y. 534, 542, 545; Curtis v. Roch. & Syr. R. R. Co., 26 Id., 49, 52; Drew v. Sixth Avenue R. R. Co.; Sedgwick on Dam., 108; Lincoln v. Sar. & Sche. R. R. Co., 23 Wend., 425, 435.)
J. H. Martindale for the respondent. The opinions of medical men, founded upon the facts as to the cause and the results of the injury, were competent. ( Buell v. N.Y. C. R. R. Co., 31 N.Y. 320; People v. Lake, 2 Ker., 362; Curtis v. R. & S. R. R. Co., 20 Barb., 391.) Prospective damages are recoverable in this action. (See cases before cited; also 2 Redfield's Laws of Railways, 220; Hopkins v. Atlantic and S. & L. Railway, 36 N. H., 9.) Plaintiff was entitled to recover for loss of services of his wife. (Reeves' Dom. Rel., chap. 4, p. 63; chap. 90, Laws of 1860.)
Successive actions cannot be brought by the plaintiff for the recovery of damages, as they may accrue from time to time, resulting from the injury complained of, as would be the case for a continuous wrong or a continued trespass. The action is for a single wrong, the injury resulting
from a single act, and the plaintiff was entitled to recover not only the damages which had been actually sustained up to the time of the trial, but also compensation for future damages; that is, compensation for all the damages resulting from the injury, whether present or prospective. The limit in respect to future damages is that they must be such as it is reasonably certain will inevitably and necessarily result from the injury. To exclude damages of that character, in actions for injuries to the person, would necessarily, in many cases, deprive the injured party of the greater part of the compensation to which he is entitled. ( Curtis v. R. and S. R. R. Co., 18 N.Y. 534; Drew v. Sixth Av. R. Co., 26 N.Y. 49.) Any evidence, therefore, tending to show the character and extent of the injury and its probable results, as well as the probability of a return of the disease induced by the injury, in the ordinary course of nature, and without...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP