
    George C. Akersloot, an Infant, Resp’t, v. The Second Avenue R. R. Co., App’lt.
    
      (New York Superior Court, General Term,
    
    
      Filed October 10, 1891.)
    
    1. Negligence—Verdict.
    Where the questions of negligence and contributory negligence were fully and fairly submitted to the jury under a charge which carefully guarded the rights of defendant, and the jury were especially instructed to determine he case on their own recollection of the evidence and not on any allusion of the judge thereto, a verdict in favor of plaintiff will not be disturbed.
    2. Same—Damages.
    In a case where the plaintiff, an infant, was injured so that a loss of a leg was sustained, a verdict for $12,000 is not excessive.
    Appeal from judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff upon the verdict of a jury, and from order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial.
    
      Merrill & Rogers, for app’lt; Franklin Bartlett, for resp’t.
   Freedman, J.

Upon the facts disclosed at the trial the ques- ' tian of negligence on the part of the person having charge of the infant plaintiff at the time of the occurrence complained of, and the question of defendant’s negligence were questions for the jury, and they were fully and fairly submitted under a charge which carefully guarded every right which the defendant had. There was no error in the charge or the refusals to charge otherwise, and the jury were expressly instructed to determine the case upon their own recollection of the evidence and not upon any allusion of the trial judge as to his recollection of certain particulars. Uor can it -be held that under all the circumstances the verdict of $12,000 for the loss of plaintiff’s leg and the suffering connected with it is excessive in amount. Upon the whole case no substantial reason appears why the verdict of the jury should be disturbed.

The judgment and order should be affirmed, with costs.

Dugro and Gildersleeve, JJ., concur.  