Bohlin v. Debari

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Bohlin v. Debari

153 A. 908, 9 N.J. Misc. 313, 1931 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 427

DecidedFebruary 6, 1931

StatusPublished

This text of 153 A. 908 (Bohlin v. Debari) 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

Bohlin v. Debari, 153 A. 908, 9 N.J. Misc. 313, 1931 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 427 (N.J. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Cubiam.

The plaintiff Charlotte Bohlin, while riding in a car driven by her son, Lester, and owned by him, was injured in a collision between it and a car owned and driven by Maurice DeBari, the accident occurring at the corner of Cedar and Main streets, in the borough of Ridgefield Park. She brought suit against the drivers of thes two vehicles, her husband joining therein to recover compensation for the expenses to which he had been put by his wife’s injuries and the loss of her society and services The trial resulted in a verdict in favor of Mrs. Bohlin, the jury awarding her $25,000, and also in favor of her husband, the jury awarding him $7,500. These awards were made against Lester Bohlin, the son of the plaintiffs, the jury absolving DeBari from any liability for the accident.

Our examination and consideration of the testimony in this case leads us to the conclusion that the proofs clearly showed that the accident was largely the result of the negligence of DeBari in the driving of his car; that the verdict acquitting him of responsibility was without legal justification; and that the action of the jury in exoneratng him from liability and holding the plaintiffs’ son solely responsible for the collision indicates that its verdict was the result of passion or prejudice on its part.

Eor this reason, the rule to show cause will be made absolute.

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

Pee Cubiam.

The plaintiff Charlotte Bohlin, while riding in a car driven by her son, Lester, and owned by him, was injured in a collision between it and a car owned and driven by Maurice DeBari, the accident occurring at the corner of Cedar and Main streets, in the borough of Ridgefield Park. She brought suit against the drivers of thes two vehicles, her husband joining therein to recover compensation for the expenses to which he had been put by his wife’s injuries and the loss of her society and services The trial resulted in a verdict in favor of Mrs. Bohlin, the jury awarding her $25,000, and also in favor of her husband, the jury awarding him $7,500. These awards were made against Lester Bohlin, the son of the plaintiffs, the jury absolving DeBari from any liability for the accident.

Our examination and consideration of the testimony in this case leads us to the conclusion that the proofs clearly showed that the accident was largely the result of the negligence of DeBari in the driving of his car; that the verdict acquitting him of responsibility was without legal justification; and that the action of the jury in exoneratng him from liability and holding the plaintiffs’ son solely responsible for the collision indicates that its verdict was the result of passion or prejudice on its part.

Eor this reason, the rule to show cause will be made absolute.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

153 A. 908, 9 N.J. Misc. 313, 1931 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 427, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bohlin-v-debari-nj-1931.