Burciar v. Public Service Co-Ordinated Transport

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Burciar v. Public Service Co-Ordinated Transport

23 A.2d 171, 127 N.J.L. 424, 1941 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 61

DecidedDecember 17, 1941

StatusPublished

This text of 23 A.2d 171 (Burciar v. Public Service Co-Ordinated Transport) 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

Burciar v. Public Service Co-Ordinated Transport, 23 A.2d 171, 127 N.J.L. 424, 1941 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 61 (N.J. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The defendant appeals from a judgment recovered by the plaintiff Elizabeth Burciar for personal injuries and by her husband per quod. The grounds of appeal are the trial court’s refusal to order a nonsuit and refusal to direct verdict for the defendant. Both motions were advanced by the appellant on the theory that the testimony for the plaintiffs failed *425 to establish that the defendant was guilty of negligence which was the proximate cause of the injury and that the injured plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence.

TJpon examination of the record, we think both motions were properly denied and that the testimony in the case was such that these issues were correctly left for the jury’s determination. On each question a fact issue was clearly raised.

The judgments under review are affirmed, with costs.

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

Per Curiam.

The defendant appeals from a judgment recovered by the plaintiff Elizabeth Burciar for personal injuries and by her husband per quod. The grounds of appeal are the trial court’s refusal to order a nonsuit and refusal to direct verdict for the defendant. Both motions were advanced by the appellant on the theory that the testimony for the plaintiffs failed *425 to establish that the defendant was guilty of negligence which was the proximate cause of the injury and that the injured plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence.

TJpon examination of the record, we think both motions were properly denied and that the testimony in the case was such that these issues were correctly left for the jury’s determination. On each question a fact issue was clearly raised.

The judgments under review are affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A.2d 171, 127 N.J.L. 424, 1941 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 61, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burciar-v-public-service-co-ordinated-transport-nj-1941.