Cannazzari v. Triangle Bus Co.

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Cannazzari v. Triangle Bus Co.

141 A. 165, 6 N.J. Misc. 345, 1928 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 308

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedMarch 29, 1928

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 141 A. 165 (Cannazzari v. Triangle Bus Co.) 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

Cannazzari v. Triangle Bus Co., 141 A. 165, 6 N.J. Misc. 345, 1928 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 308 (N.J. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is the defendant’s rule for a new trial. The plaintiff, Salvatore Cannazzari, as administrator ad prosequendum, recovered a verdict at the Essex Circuit of the Supreme Court .against the defendant for the death of Stokey Cannazzari.

Of the reasons assigned for making the rule absolute, two are argued. These are that the court erred in its charge to the jury, and that it should have submitted the question of the negligence of ’the deceased, Stokey Cannazzari, to the jury.

Neither of these reasons we think are well founded. The portion of the charge complained of is this: “The defendant was operating a bus which was driven by its employe, Richard Kampf, and, of course, if Richard Kampf was guilty of negligence, the defendant can he held, and so the testimony of the driver is particularly interesting.” It is contended that this charge improperly omitted to instruct the jury as to the [346]*346causal relation between the accident and the death of Cannazzari.

Our examination of the evidence convinces us that the negligence of the defendant, if it existed, was so clearly the cause of the accident that the trial judge was justified in assuming such to be the fact and in refraining from charging otherwise than he did. We also think that contributory negligence of the deceased was not an issue in the case, and, therefore, the trial judge did not err in failing to submit it to the jury. The proofs were that the deceased was riding as a passenger in the rear seat of a Eord touring car being driven by one Sherman. A collision occurred between this car and a bus of the defendant company. There was no evidence upon which it could be held that the deceased was in any wise responsible for the operation of the touring car, or for the accident which caused his death.

The rule for new trial is discharged.

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

Per Curiam.

This is the defendant’s rule for a new trial. The plaintiff, Salvatore Cannazzari, as administrator ad prosequendum, recovered a verdict at the Essex Circuit of the Supreme Court .against the defendant for the death of Stokey Cannazzari.

Of the reasons assigned for making the rule absolute, two are argued. These are that the court erred in its charge to the jury, and that it should have submitted the question of the negligence of ’the deceased, Stokey Cannazzari, to the jury.

Neither of these reasons we think are well founded. The portion of the charge complained of is this: “The defendant was operating a bus which was driven by its employe, Richard Kampf, and, of course, if Richard Kampf was guilty of negligence, the defendant can he held, and so the testimony of the driver is particularly interesting.” It is contended that this charge improperly omitted to instruct the jury as to the [346]*346causal relation between the accident and the death of Cannazzari.

Our examination of the evidence convinces us that the negligence of the defendant, if it existed, was so clearly the cause of the accident that the trial judge was justified in assuming such to be the fact and in refraining from charging otherwise than he did. We also think that contributory negligence of the deceased was not an issue in the case, and, therefore, the trial judge did not err in failing to submit it to the jury. The proofs were that the deceased was riding as a passenger in the rear seat of a Eord touring car being driven by one Sherman. A collision occurred between this car and a bus of the defendant company. There was no evidence upon which it could be held that the deceased was in any wise responsible for the operation of the touring car, or for the accident which caused his death.

The rule for new trial is discharged.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

141 A. 165, 6 N.J. Misc. 345, 1928 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 308, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cannazzari-v-triangle-bus-co-nj-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack