Staal v. Grand St. & N.R. Co.

• Decision Date: 11 October 1887
• Citation: 13 N.E. 624,107 N.Y. 625
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: STAAL v. GRAND STREET & N. R. CO.

107 N.Y. 625

13 N.E. 624

STAAL

v.GRAND STREET & N. R. CO.

Court of Appeals of New York.

October 11, 1887.

Albert G. McDonald, for appellant.

A. Simis, Jr., for respondent.

EARL, J.

The plaintiff brought this action to recover damages for injuries which he claimed to have sustained while alighting from one of the defendant's cars, in which he was a passenger, and he recovered a judgment, which has been affirmed at the general term.

This appeal brings to our attention only exceptions to the charge of the trial judge relating to the damages which the jury might award. That portion of the charge, and the exceptions thereto, are as follows: That the plaintiff ‘is entitled to recover, as damages in this action, compensation- First, for the pain and suffering that he has encountered. Second, as this injury is, to some extent at least, permanent, he is entitled to compensation for the results which will flow in the future from this injury; that is, for any suffering and inconvenience he will have in life resulting from this injury, and for pecuniary loss on account of the injury caused by the diminution in his ability to earn a livelihood. There is no hard rule to be laid down to you in this case. You must say, under all the circumstances, considering what pain he has suffered, what his loss has been in his circumstances in life, the chances of what money he would make, and his age, considering the injury, and the results of that injury, what would be a fair compensation. All that is left to the good sense of the jury.’ The counsel for defendant then excepted ‘to that part of your honor's charge in which you say that the jury may allow him his pecuniary losses resulting from his disabilities owing to this accident;’ and he requested the judge to charge that ‘the jury should take into consideration the great age of the plaintiff, as affecting future continuance of life.’ The judge replied: ‘I charge that; and I will say, further, that in this case there is no proof of loss shown by what his income was up to that time. What the court, therefore, told you as to pecuniary losses, was in connection with the future.’ To that defendant's counsel excepted, and requested the judge to charge that the jury could not ‘make further allowance to the plaintiff for expenses of treatment, or care for the past or future.’ In reference to the request the judge said: ‘I charge that for the past. For future expenses the jury have a right to consider the expenses of this injury, if they find this renders the plaintiff to any extent helpless, and also to consider to what expenditures to make him comfortable he will have to go;’ and to that defendant's counsel excepted.

This is the entire charge relating to the damages; and that it may be appreciated it must be stated that immediately after the injury the plaintiff was taken to a charity hospital, where he remained about three months; that he then went to another charity hospital, where he remained several months; and that he...