Bohan v. Gulya

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Bohan v. Gulya

147 A. 226, 7 N.J. Misc. 777, 1929 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 163

DecidedSeptember 12, 1929

StatusPublished

This text of 147 A. 226 (Bohan v. Gulya) 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

Bohan v. Gulya, 147 A. 226, 7 N.J. Misc. 777, 1929 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 163 (N.J. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

Pek Cueiam.

This is an assault and battery case. The infant plaintiff, a young girl of eighteen, had a verdict of $2,500, which may properly be considered to have included punitive damages, and her father had a verdict of $100 for damages per quod.

As to the physical injury admittedly inflicted by defendant on llegina, the dispute of fact is principally whether he hit her in the head with a large stone, or whether it was merely a clod of dirt. The evidence seems fairly clear that her scalp was cut to the bone and that she had severe bruises on the leg. Making allowance for a certain amount of exaggeration of the alleged nervous injury, the ease shows an unreasonable and unnecessary assault by an irascible grown man on a young woman, and the jury quite properly took advantage of the instruction that they might include exemplary damages. As to the verdict of $100 for loss of services, the actual expense proved was only $10, but there are other elements in such a verdict besides actual expense sustained, which may be assessed by a jury though incapable of definite arithmetical calculation.

The rule will he discharged.

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

Pek Cueiam.

This is an assault and battery case. The infant plaintiff, a young girl of eighteen, had a verdict of $2,500, which may properly be considered to have included punitive damages, and her father had a verdict of $100 for damages per quod.

As to the physical injury admittedly inflicted by defendant on llegina, the dispute of fact is principally whether he hit her in the head with a large stone, or whether it was merely a clod of dirt. The evidence seems fairly clear that her scalp was cut to the bone and that she had severe bruises on the leg. Making allowance for a certain amount of exaggeration of the alleged nervous injury, the ease shows an unreasonable and unnecessary assault by an irascible grown man on a young woman, and the jury quite properly took advantage of the instruction that they might include exemplary damages. As to the verdict of $100 for loss of services, the actual expense proved was only $10, but there are other elements in such a verdict besides actual expense sustained, which may be assessed by a jury though incapable of definite arithmetical calculation.

The rule will he discharged.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

147 A. 226, 7 N.J. Misc. 777, 1929 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 163, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bohan-v-gulya-nj-1929.