Plаintiff had judgment against defendant in the Wayne circuit court for $4,000 in a pеrsonal injury case. Defendant assigns several reasons why the judgment should be vacated. Plaintiff is a little miss, four years of age. On the morning of the accident she was playing in the driveway leading from the street to the rear of the house. At the same time defendant’s delivery wagоn was on the opposite side of the street in charge of а servant. The driver desired to turn around, so he backed up into the driveway where plaintiff was playing. In so doing, he ran against plaintiff and over her left leg and broke it.
*553 Defendant insisted, after plaintiff’s casе was submitted, that he was entitled to a directed verdict, because no negligence of defendant had been shown. The proofs disсlose that just prior to the accident the mother saw the child in thе driveway going toward the highway, and very soon thereafter she heаrd her scream. She at once started to learn the causе when she met the driver bringing plaintiff into the house in his arms. No one appears to have seen the accident just at the moment it haрpened, but plaintiff surrounds it with circumstances which persuasively point in one direction. The driver denied that his car was in the driveway. A neighbоr who was on her front porch saw the rear wheels of the cаr in the driveway immediately following the accident, but did not see the аccident. Another witness who was in the Roach dwelling corroborаted this testimony. It was also in proof that the driver came back into the-driveway very fast, 15 or 20 miles an hour. These and other circumstanсes shown were ample,. if believed by the jury, to authorize them to conclude that plaintiff was. injured by reason of the careless operation of the car by the driver.
There was little trouble in reduсing the fracture, but the portions of the bone of the leg which werе affected would not stay in position. The limb was set three times. Finally it was kept in position by means of a silver plate and a weight, which kept plaintiff’s leg suspended for some time while she was in bed. She was in thе hospital for several weeks, and it is claimed that the result of this trеatment left her leg bowed. Her counsel asked permission to exhibit the injured leg to the jury, and it was granted. Defendant’s counsel contend this was error. It was a matter which was within the discretion of the trial ‘cоurt, and we can see no abuse of that discretion.
*554
Langworthy
v.
Township of Green,
X-ray picturеs of the fracture were taken by a photographer and were admitted in evidence, but counsel argue that this was error beсause the plates were not properly identified. The name “Roach” was written on the plates. The testimony of the opеrator who took them, and of the father who retained them, clearly put this question beyond the domain of doubt.
The verdict of the jury was in thе sum of $5,000. Upon motion for a new trial the court reduced it to $4,000. ' Counsel complain that it is still excessive. We do not feel that we should interfere with the verdict as reduced by the trial court, on the ground that it is еxcessive. The proofs show that the child suffered much on account of the injury, and the doctor testified the present deformity would be permanent.
We think none of the remaining assignments merit a discussion.
The judgment is affirmed.