
    Angelina C. Lockwood, Resp’t, v. The Twenty-third Street R. Co., App’lt.
    
      (New York Common Pleas, General Term,
    
    
      Filed December 2, 1889.)
    
    Negligence—Damages—-Verdict when excessive.
    Plaintiff, a married woman, was thrown from one of defendant’s cars hy the sudden starting thereof, and sustained injury to the sciatic nerve and tlie broad ligament of the uterus, accompanied by suppression of menstruation and nervous prostration. She was forty-three years old at the time. Held, that a verdict of $10,000, being far above the average amount awarded in similar cases, was not reasonable and should be set aside.
    Appeal from judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict for $10,000.
    Action for injuries sustained by ¡ilaintiff through the alleged negligence of defendant. Plaintiff and her daughter were passengers on one of defendant’s cars and attempted to alight at the terminus of the road. As she did so the driver swung the car around on the turn-table and plaintiff fell, striking her back against the rear guard rail, and thereby sustained the injuries ■mentioned in the opinion.
    
      Leslie W. Russell, for app’lt; Llaley Fislce, for resp’t.
   Van Hoesen, J.

In Jennings v. Van Schaick, 13 Daly, 7, this court said: “ Where a verdict is much above or much below the average, it is fair to infer, unless the case presents extraordinary features, that partiality, prejudice, or some other improper motive has led the jury astray.”

The verdict in this case is far above the average. The plaintiff has recovered $10,000 for an injury to the sciatic nerve, and for an inffamation of a broad ligament that sustains the uterus, accompanied by obstinate constijiation, the suppression of menstruation, aiid nervous prostration. The plaintiff is forty-four years of age, and at the time of the accident was almost forty-three, near the period at which menstruation ceases, in obedience to a law of nature. She had formerly had an inflammation of the ligament, and of the uterus, but for three years prior to the accident had not suffered from that ailment. She was never a robust woman ; but she is more feeble now than she was formerly, and she has suffered considerable pain, and a great deal of inconvenience. She suffers when she walks, and she is not strong enough to do house work. These infirmities are all deplorable, but, compared with the verdicts that juries are in the habit of giving where the injuries are quite as severe as those of which the plaintiff complains, this verdict is inordinately large. She is not entitled to recover for loss of time, or for medical attendance, because those are items of damage recoverable by her husband. Her claim is for compensation for pain and suffering, and when that has been satisfied, the demand of her husband must be met The consideration to which I have just referred ought not to influence our estimate of the recompense which the plaintiff herself ought to receive, but it may well be borne in mind that pain and suffering are the only elements of damage that the jury ought to have considered. It is difficult to estimate the damages, and, as has already been said, the best attainable criterion of the reasonableness of a verdict is its conformity to the average amount awarded by juries in cases in which injuries of like nature and like extent have been sustained. Judged b}>- that standard, our experience and observation teach us that this verdict is not reasonable. We ■ shall set aside the verdict and order a hew trial on the payment by the defendant of the costs of this appeal, and of the last trial, unless the plaintiff will stipulate to reduce the damages to $4,000.

Larremore, Oh. J., concurs.  