Brownlee v. Decker

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Brownlee v. Decker

151 A. 89, 8 N.J. Misc. 581, 1930 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 127

DecidedJuly 15, 1930

StatusPublished

This text of 151 A. 89 (Brownlee v. Decker) 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

Brownlee v. Decker, 151 A. 89, 8 N.J. Misc. 581, 1930 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 127 (N.J. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Cueiam.

This action was instituted to recover compensation for personal injuries received by the plaintiff as the result of the negligence of the defendants. The jury awarded him $3,500. He claims that this award is grossly inadequate and seeks to have the verdict set aside for that reason and a new trial granted limited to the question of damages only.

; The finding of the jury that the injuries received by the plaintiff were the direct result of negligence on the part of the defendants is not challenged by any action taken by the latter to test the validity of that finding. We are consequently only concerned with the question whether the amount of the jury’s award is plainly inadequate. We think it was. The plaintiff’s right eye was so seriously injured that it had to be removed. The right side of his face over the cheekbone was badly cut. His nose was fractured, the bridge being pushed over to the right side of the face and preventing him from breathing easily through the right nostril. These injuries caused the plaintiff a great deal of pain for a long time, and he still suffers from them to some extent.

The verdict will be set aside .and a new trial ordered; the trial to be limited to the question of damages only.

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

Pee Cueiam.

This action was instituted to recover compensation for personal injuries received by the plaintiff as the result of the negligence of the defendants. The jury awarded him $3,500. He claims that this award is grossly inadequate and seeks to have the verdict set aside for that reason and a new trial granted limited to the question of damages only.

; The finding of the jury that the injuries received by the plaintiff were the direct result of negligence on the part of the defendants is not challenged by any action taken by the latter to test the validity of that finding. We are consequently only concerned with the question whether the amount of the jury’s award is plainly inadequate. We think it was. The plaintiff’s right eye was so seriously injured that it had to be removed. The right side of his face over the cheekbone was badly cut. His nose was fractured, the bridge being pushed over to the right side of the face and preventing him from breathing easily through the right nostril. These injuries caused the plaintiff a great deal of pain for a long time, and he still suffers from them to some extent.

The verdict will be set aside .and a new trial ordered; the trial to be limited to the question of damages only.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

151 A. 89, 8 N.J. Misc. 581, 1930 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 127, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brownlee-v-decker-nj-1930.