
    Josephine G. Valentine, Respondent, against The Broadway and Seventh Avenue Railroad Company, Appellant.
    (Decided May 18th, 1888.)
    In an action for personal injuries caused by a fall, when attempting to board defendant’s horse-car, the evidence showed that the fall injured plaintiff’s spine, causing her pain in walking any considerable distance, and also brought on prolapsus uteri, which her physicians testified might cause her life-long suffering. Held, that a verdict of §4,000 damages should not be set aside as excessive.
    It is not necessarily negligence in law to get upon a street-car while it is moving slowly.
    Appeal from a judgment of this court entered upon the verdict of a jury.
    The action was brought to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of a
    
      driver of defendant’s horse-car in suddenly stopping the same while plaintiff was in the act of boarding the car, occasioning her fall and the injuries in question. The evidence showed that plaintiff, a married woman having children nineteen and sixteen years of age respectively, was in good health prior to the accident: that she was confined in bed a month or so as the result of the accident; that the fall injured her spine, causing her pain when walking any considerable distance, and also resulted in prolapsus uteri, which her physicians testified might cause her life-long suffering. The jury found a verdict for plaintiff for $4,000. From the judgment entered thereon defendant appealed.
    
      Hoot if Strong, for appellant.
    
      Thomas JaeJcson, for respondent.
   Per Curiam. — [Present, Larremore, Ch. J., Allen and Bookstaver, JJ.]

—We do not think that we would be justified in disturbing this judgment, upon the ground that the damages awarded by the jury to the plaintiff are excessive. The testimony indicates that the plaintiff received severe internal injuries which may last for some years. The amount is not so great as to indicate passion or prejudice on the part of the jury, and we do not feel inclined to interfere with the judgment, upon the ground of excessiveness of damages.

And we see no reason for reversing the judgment upon any other ground. The case was submitted to the jury by the court in a charge which was particularly favorable to the defendant. There was sufficient evidence to take the case to the jury upon the questions of the defendant’s negligence and the contributory negligence of the plaintiff. We would not be warranted in disturbing the decision of the jury upon the evidence as to these questions.

There was one exception to the charge of the court. It was to that part of the charge which instructed the jury that it is not necessarily negligence in law to get upon a street-car while it is moving slowly. This was not error (Eppendorf v. Brooklyn City &c. R. Co., 69 N. Y. 195).

Judgment affirmed, with costs.  