Dallenbach v. Hineline

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Dallenbach v. Hineline

157 A. 249, 9 N.J. Misc. 1075, 1931 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 147

DecidedOctober 7, 1931

StatusPublished

This text of 157 A. 249 (Dallenbach v. Hineline) 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

Dallenbach v. Hineline, 157 A. 249, 9 N.J. Misc. 1075, 1931 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 147 (N.J. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is defendant’s rule for new trial and the single reason urged for making it absolute is that the damages are excessive. The plaintiff, a young man twenty-three years of age, received through the negligence of the defendant an injury to his left shoulder, lacerations of the hand, a fracture of the left forearm and an injury to his private parts resulting in a permanent stricture of the urethra. He received a verdict of $10,000.

While the verdict is high, we think it is not so clearly excessive that it should be disturbed. The proofs were that he suffered severe pains; that his left arm was seriously impaired in its usefulness and that there was a permanent stricture of the urethra which required a periodical expanding of that organ to permit the passage of the urine; that this was always painful and that even the passage of urine [1076]*1076itself was a painful experience. We are not prepared to say that for such injuries, both of which were permanent in their effects, we should either grant a new trial or reduce the-amount as a condition of refusing a new trial.

The rule is discharged.

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

Per Curiam.

This is defendant’s rule for new trial and the single reason urged for making it absolute is that the damages are excessive. The plaintiff, a young man twenty-three years of age, received through the negligence of the defendant an injury to his left shoulder, lacerations of the hand, a fracture of the left forearm and an injury to his private parts resulting in a permanent stricture of the urethra. He received a verdict of $10,000.

While the verdict is high, we think it is not so clearly excessive that it should be disturbed. The proofs were that he suffered severe pains; that his left arm was seriously impaired in its usefulness and that there was a permanent stricture of the urethra which required a periodical expanding of that organ to permit the passage of the urine; that this was always painful and that even the passage of urine [1076]*1076itself was a painful experience. We are not prepared to say that for such injuries, both of which were permanent in their effects, we should either grant a new trial or reduce the-amount as a condition of refusing a new trial.

The rule is discharged.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

157 A. 249, 9 N.J. Misc. 1075, 1931 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 147, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dallenbach-v-hineline-nj-1931.