Brasch v. New York & Long Branch Railroad

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Brasch v. New York & Long Branch Railroad

152 A. 187, 8 N.J. Misc. 886, 1930 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 56

DecidedNovember 17, 1930

StatusPublished

This text of 152 A. 187 (Brasch v. New York & Long Branch Railroad) 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

Brasch v. New York & Long Branch Railroad, 152 A. 187, 8 N.J. Misc. 886, 1930 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 56 (N.J. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff’s intestate, while riding in an automobile, attempted to cross a grade crossing of the railroad maintained by the New York and Long Branch Eailroad Company, near Eed Bank, was struck by a train operated by the Central Eailroad Company of New Jersey and killed. The crossing was. protected by a crossing bell. Plaintiff brought his action against both railroad companies and a trial of the action resulted in a verdict in his favor of $9,000 against the New York and Long Branch Eailroad Company, and against him and in favor of the Central Eailroad Company of New Jersey.

The defendant, New York and Long Branch Eailroad Company, has this rule and seeks to set aside the verdict against, it for three reasons.

1. That no negligence was established against it. This is-upon the contention that the crossing bell was ringing at the-[887]*887time of the happening and that it was not established by the preponderance of the evidence.

With this we do not agree. Prom the proofs a fair jury question was presented and of such a character as does not warrant this court in setting aside the finding of the jury.

2. By the clear weight of the evidence plaintiff’s decedent was guilty of contributory negligence.

We think this was a fair jury question and that the result reached should not be disturbed.

3. That the verdict is excessive.

We think it was fairly within the proofs and does not indicate that it is the result of passion, prejudice or mistake. Consequently it should not be disturbed.

The rule is discharged, with costs.

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

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff’s intestate, while riding in an automobile, attempted to cross a grade crossing of the railroad maintained by the New York and Long Branch Eailroad Company, near Eed Bank, was struck by a train operated by the Central Eailroad Company of New Jersey and killed. The crossing was. protected by a crossing bell. Plaintiff brought his action against both railroad companies and a trial of the action resulted in a verdict in his favor of $9,000 against the New York and Long Branch Eailroad Company, and against him and in favor of the Central Eailroad Company of New Jersey.

The defendant, New York and Long Branch Eailroad Company, has this rule and seeks to set aside the verdict against, it for three reasons.

1. That no negligence was established against it. This is-upon the contention that the crossing bell was ringing at the-[887]*887time of the happening and that it was not established by the preponderance of the evidence.

With this we do not agree. Prom the proofs a fair jury question was presented and of such a character as does not warrant this court in setting aside the finding of the jury.

2. By the clear weight of the evidence plaintiff’s decedent was guilty of contributory negligence.

We think this was a fair jury question and that the result reached should not be disturbed.

3. That the verdict is excessive.

We think it was fairly within the proofs and does not indicate that it is the result of passion, prejudice or mistake. Consequently it should not be disturbed.

The rule is discharged, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

152 A. 187, 8 N.J. Misc. 886, 1930 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 56, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brasch-v-new-york-long-branch-railroad-nj-1930.