Porter v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co.

• Decision Date: 11 June 1906
• Citation: 63 A. 860,73 N.J.L. 405
• Parties: PORTER v. DELAWARE, L. & W. R. CO.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

63 A. 860

73 N.J.L. 405

PORTER

v. DELAWARE, L. & W. R. CO.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

June 11, 1906.

Action by Anna Porter against the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Company. Verdict in favor of plaintiff. On a rule to show cause why a new trial should not be granted. Rule made absolute, unless plaintiff consent to a reduction of the verdict.

Argued February term, 1906, before FORT, PITNEY, and REED, JJ.

McCarter, Williamson & McCarter, for the rule. Eugene Emley, opposed.

FORT, J. The plaintiff in this case had a verdict at the Passaic circuit for alleged injuries resulting from the negligence of the defendant company. The plaintiff was walking upon the public highway in the city of Newark, upon Ogden street in said city, and, just as she was passing from under the overhead railway bridge of the defendant company, which spans the street, it fell, with an engine upon it, and she claims that something hit her upon the back of the neck and that the dust from the crash got into her eyes. She also claims injuries resulting from the shock. The chief injuries are alleged to be to her eyes and nervous system.

The contention of the defendant is that she received no physical injury whatever, but that the condition she alleges she is suffering from is due to fright alone. If that were true, of course, she could not recover. Ward v. West Jersey, etc., R. R. Co., 05 N. J. Law, 383, 47 Atl. 561. But, if she received physical injuries, all the resultant effects to her system, due to the accident, are recoverable. The proof by the plaintiff was that she was hit on the neck by something, and that dust from the falling debris went into her eyes. Proof of either of these physical injuries would take the case out of the rule as to nonrecovery for fright alone. Accepting the finding of the jury that she thus Buffered physical injury, she was entitled to damages for the results flowing therefrom. We do not think the weight of the evidence is so clearly against her having received the physical injuries she alleged as to justify us in disturbing the verdict on that ground.

Several points are made in the defendant's brief, as to the erroneous ruling of the trial judge in the admission of evidence. We have examined them all. Some of the rulings alleged to be erroneous, we do not find were excepted to, nor was there in fact even an objection to the ruling. It may he that on a rule to show cause the court has the discretionary power to grant a new trial for...