
    William J. Wilson, Respondent, v. The Broadway & Seventh Avenue Railroad Co., Appellant.
    (New York Superior Court—General Term,
    May, 1894.)
    In an action for injuries from a collision caused by defendant’s car striking the car of another road which crossed it, evidence as to the rate of speed of defendant’s car at or near the place of collision is relevant and material.
    The admission of testimony of the plaintiff that the car was going at quite a rapid pace within two blocks of the place of collision is not prejudicial error, where there is other evidence not objected to that the driver was whipping up his horses as he approached such place; that the horses were galloping and had been made to go quite fast for some distance before reaching it.
    Where the result of the injury is a contraction of the fingers of plaintiS’s right hand, caused by a permanent impairment of the nerves, so that there is a loss of muscular power in grasping with that hand, intense pain and an expense of @175 for medical attendance, a verdict of @3,350 is 'not excessive.
    Appeal by defendant from a judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff upon a verdict of a jury, and from the order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial.
    
      Soot <& Glárice, for appellant.
    
      WilUam Allcm, for respondent.
   Freedman, J.

The action was brought to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff while a passenger on one of defendant’s cars which collided with another car by reason of defendant’s negligence. All the questions presented by the evidence given by both parties were fully and fairly submitted to the jury, who rendered a verdict hi favor of the plaintiff for $3,250. The brief of the learned counsel for the appellant presents but two points for the consideration of the General Term, and all others may, therefore, be deemed to have been waived.

The first point raised is that the trial judge erred in permitting the plaintiff, on his direct examination, to answer a question as to the rate of speed of the defendant’s car within two blocks of Bleecker street. The car of the defendant was going south through Wooster street and ran into a car going east through Bleecker street while the latter was crossing Wooster street. The front platform of defendant’s car struck the center of the Bleecker street car. Under these circumstances it was relevant and material to show the rate of speed at which defendant’s car was going at or near the place of collision. Plaintiff’s answer: They were going at quite a rapid pace” clearly did not prejudice defendant’s case as showing or tending to show another negligent act some distance away from the point of collision, for there is abundant other testimony in the case, which came in without objection, to the effect that defendant’s driver as he approached Bleecker street, was whipping the horses and that they were galloping and going at the rate of about ten miles an hour, and that they had been made to go quite fast for some distance before reaching Bleecker street. The point is, therefore, clearly untenable.

The second point is that the verdict is excessive. The plaintiff was twenty-two years old when he was injured. He was strong and powerful. In the collision his wrist was cut and his right arm severely bruised, and as a consequence his. hand swelled and puffed out and his fingers contracted. The contraction of the fingers is due to an injury to the nerves-supplying those fingers, and the impairment of the said nerves-is permanent so that he will never' have the same muscular power in grasping with his hand that he had before. He has-suffered intense pain and still suffers pain after the lapse of several years, and his doctor’s bill was $175. In view of the foregoing and other minor facts which bear upon this branch of the case, it cannot be held that the verdict is excessive.

The judgment and order should be affirmed, with costs.

McAdam, J., concurs.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.  