Cropanese v. Ontell

64 A.2d 894, 2 N.J. Super. 120, 1949 N.J. Super. LEXIS 995
CourtNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
DecidedMarch 30, 1949
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 64 A.2d 894 (Cropanese v. Ontell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Cropanese v. Ontell, 64 A.2d 894, 2 N.J. Super. 120, 1949 N.J. Super. LEXIS 995 (N.J. Ct. App. 1949).

Opinion

Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of nonsuit entered in the Passaic County Court.

From the evidence, a jury could have found the following facts: A car owned by defendant Yetta Ontell and operated by defendant Nathaniel Ontell collided with a car owned and operated by the plaintiff Michael Cropanese, in which plaintiff Joseph Cropanese was a passenger. The collision occurred on Paterson Street, which has a width of 35 feet, at a time when there was no traffic in the street other than these two cars. Michael Cropanese heard a leak in a front tire of his car, pulled over to the curb and parked. He looked in his mirror and saw the Ontell car a half block away, coming down the center of the street in the same direction. He partially opened his left front door so that it extended about six inches beyond the running-board, looked back and then saw the Ontell car swerving in towards him. As Michael attempted to close the door, the Ontell car "swerved and swished over," hit the partially open door, bounced off and went 75 to 100 feet before coming to a stop. Besides the damage to Michael's car, Michael and Joseph sustained personal injuries.

In such circumstances, the motion to nonsuit was improperly granted. On a motion for nonsuit, all of the evidence adduced by the plaintiff, and every legitimate inference which may be drawn therefrom, must be considered in the light most favorable to the plaintiff's claim, and if such evidence or inference of fact will support a verdict for plaintiff, such motion should be denied.Strutko v. Mann, 124 N.J.L. 183 (E. A. 1940).

The judgment under review is reversed, a new trial is awarded, and costs shall abide the event. *Page 122

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

Related

Weinstein v. Weinstein
76 A.2d 532 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1950)
Stewart v. Twp. of Delanco
66 A.2d 751 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1949)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
64 A.2d 894, 2 N.J. Super. 120, 1949 N.J. Super. LEXIS 995, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cropanese-v-ontell-njsuperctappdiv-1949.