Damchuk v. Public Service Railway Co.

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Damchuk v. Public Service Railway Co.

136 A. 604, 5 N.J. Misc. 365, 1927 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 285

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedFebruary 14, 1927

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 136 A. 604 (Damchuk v. Public Service Railway 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

Damchuk v. Public Service Railway Co., 136 A. 604, 5 N.J. Misc. 365, 1927 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 285 (N.J. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal by the Public Service Railway Company, the defendant below, from a judgment entered against it in the District Court of the Second Judicial District of Essex county. Two suits were instituted against the Public Service Railway Company to recover damages arising from a collision between an automobile and a trolley car which occurred on Market street, in the city of Newark. The owner of the automobile, Stanley Sternick, instituted one. The plaintiff, Barbara Damchuk, a passenger in Sterniek’s automobile, instituted the other. She obtained the judgment now appealed from. The court, in the Sternick case, decided that Sternick and the Public Service Railway Company were both negligent and gave judgment for the public service company. In the present case the sole ground of appeal is that the court excluded testimony bearing on the condition, as to whether [366]*366drunk or sober, of Sternick and Barbara Damchuk. This evidence was admissible. Searles v. Public Service Railway Co., 126 Atl. Rep. 465; Castner v. Sliker, 33 N. J. L. 95. The error in the rejection of the testimony by the trial court appears to be admitted by the respondent, but the respondent claims that a witness by the name of Herman Crawsawski testified on this subject. He said, “Why, yes. I smelt liquor from the three occupants of that automobile.” It is claimed that this cured the error. In our opinion this did not cure the error. This witness did not testify as to the drunkenness or sobriety of Sternick and the respondent, but as to whether he smelled liquor upon them. They may have smelled of liquor and not have been drunk. Moreover, the defendant was entitled to cumulative evidence on this branch of the case.

This error makes necessary a reversal of the judgment obtained by the plaintiff below and the remission of the case for retrial.

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

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal by the Public Service Railway Company, the defendant below, from a judgment entered against it in the District Court of the Second Judicial District of Essex county. Two suits were instituted against the Public Service Railway Company to recover damages arising from a collision between an automobile and a trolley car which occurred on Market street, in the city of Newark. The owner of the automobile, Stanley Sternick, instituted one. The plaintiff, Barbara Damchuk, a passenger in Sterniek’s automobile, instituted the other. She obtained the judgment now appealed from. The court, in the Sternick case, decided that Sternick and the Public Service Railway Company were both negligent and gave judgment for the public service company. In the present case the sole ground of appeal is that the court excluded testimony bearing on the condition, as to whether [366]*366drunk or sober, of Sternick and Barbara Damchuk. This evidence was admissible. Searles v. Public Service Railway Co., 126 Atl. Rep. 465; Castner v. Sliker, 33 N. J. L. 95. The error in the rejection of the testimony by the trial court appears to be admitted by the respondent, but the respondent claims that a witness by the name of Herman Crawsawski testified on this subject. He said, “Why, yes. I smelt liquor from the three occupants of that automobile.” It is claimed that this cured the error. In our opinion this did not cure the error. This witness did not testify as to the drunkenness or sobriety of Sternick and the respondent, but as to whether he smelled liquor upon them. They may have smelled of liquor and not have been drunk. Moreover, the defendant was entitled to cumulative evidence on this branch of the case.

This error makes necessary a reversal of the judgment obtained by the plaintiff below and the remission of the case for retrial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

136 A. 604, 5 N.J. Misc. 365, 1927 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 285, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/damchuk-v-public-service-railway-co-nj-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack