Amari v. Katz

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Amari v. Katz

31 A.2d 759, 130 N.J.L. 99, 1943 N.J. LEXIS 223

DecidedApril 29, 1943

StatusPublished

This text of 31 A.2d 759 (Amari v. Katz) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Amari v. Katz, 31 A.2d 759, 130 N.J.L. 99, 1943 N.J. LEXIS 223 (N.J. 1943).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Bodine J.

This action was brought to recover damages to person and property because of a collision between two automobiles. The sole question for determination on this appeal is the propriety of a nonsuit granted by the learned trial judge as to the trustees in bankruptcy, who were sued with the consent of the court of their selection.

At the time of the accident the defendant Bialko, an employee of the bankrupt concern, was on his way to Garfield to bring to work one of his feBow workers who could not get his ear started. This employee had telephoned for help so that he could get to work on time. Bialko had used his car on other occasions to bring employees to work at his immediate superior’s request. On the occasion in question, with such superior’s knowledge, he had gone on his mission. He was employed as an oiler and handyman working on trucks in the bankrupt’s business.

It seems that the jury could have found that his mission, when the accident occurred, was one for his employer’s benefit and within the scope of his employment even though he was using his own car. Blackman v. Atlantic City and Shore *100 Railroad, 126 N. J. L. 458; Smith v. Bosco, 126 Id. 452; Winkelstein v. Solitare, 129 Id. 38.

The judgment is reversed, with costs.

For affirmance — Case, Donges, Wells, JJ. 3.

For reversal — The Chancellor, Chiee Justice, Parker, Bodine, Heher, Perskie, Porter, Dear, Raeeertt, Thompson, JJ. 10.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Bodine J.

This action was brought to recover damages to person and property because of a collision between two automobiles. The sole question for determination on this appeal is the propriety of a nonsuit granted by the learned trial judge as to the trustees in bankruptcy, who were sued with the consent of the court of their selection.

At the time of the accident the defendant Bialko, an employee of the bankrupt concern, was on his way to Garfield to bring to work one of his feBow workers who could not get his ear started. This employee had telephoned for help so that he could get to work on time. Bialko had used his car on other occasions to bring employees to work at his immediate superior’s request. On the occasion in question, with such superior’s knowledge, he had gone on his mission. He was employed as an oiler and handyman working on trucks in the bankrupt’s business.

It seems that the jury could have found that his mission, when the accident occurred, was one for his employer’s benefit and within the scope of his employment even though he was using his own car. Blackman v. Atlantic City and Shore *100 Railroad, 126 N. J. L. 458; Smith v. Bosco, 126 Id. 452; Winkelstein v. Solitare, 129 Id. 38.

The judgment is reversed, with costs.

For affirmance — Case, Donges, Wells, JJ. 3.

For reversal — The Chancellor, Chiee Justice, Parker, Bodine, Heher, Perskie, Porter, Dear, Raeeertt, Thompson, JJ. 10.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 A.2d 759, 130 N.J.L. 99, 1943 N.J. LEXIS 223, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amari-v-katz-nj-1943.