# Murphy v. Kipp & Brown

> The Superior Court of New York City · January 15, 1853 · 1 Duer 659

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8316299

## Case

- **Full name:** Murphy, Administratrix of Murphy v. Kipp & Brown
- **Court:** The Superior Court of New York City
- **Decided:** January 15, 1853
- **Citations:** 1 Duer 659
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Cited by:** 1 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8316299

> The text below was read from a page scan (OCR) and may contain errors.

## Opinion text

Murphy, Administratrix of Murphy, v. Kipp & Brown.

At Chambers,

Jan., 1853.
In an action under the statute, by the representatives of a deceased ■ person, deprived of life through the alleged negligence of the defendants, to recover the damages occasioned by his death to his widow and children, a bill of particulars cannot properly be required.
It would be unreasonable to require the plaintiff in such actions, to state by anticipation all the items, and the amount of each, that the court might hold would properly enter into the computation of damages.
The alleged disposition of ordinary jurors, to give extravagant damages in such cases, is not a sufficient reason for granting a struck jury.
’As the damages, in such cases, are limited to the pecuniary loss, when, in the ’ judgment of the court, they exceed any reasonable estimate of such loss, the verdict will be set aside.
This was an action under the statute to recover the damages, resulting from the death of the intestate, to his widow and children." The defendants were the proprietors of an omnibus lipe, and the complaint averred that by the gross negligence of the driver of one of their stages, the deceased had been run over, and had died in consequence of the injuries he received.
The defendants moved for a bill of particulars, and also for a struck jury, upon the ground that the prejudices of ordinary juries led them to give excessive damages.
For the reasons above stated, the judges, consulted by Campbell, J., were all of opinion that both motions ought to be denied.
They were denied accordingly.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8316299. Public record. Not legal advice.