Donnise v. Pennsylvania Railroad

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Donnise v. Pennsylvania Railroad

2 N.J. Misc. 950, 1924 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 49

DecidedOctober 7, 1924

StatusPublished

This text of 2 N.J. Misc. 950 (Donnise v. Pennsylvania Railroad) 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

Donnise v. Pennsylvania Railroad, 2 N.J. Misc. 950, 1924 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 49 (N.J. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This was an action brought under the Federal Employers’ Liability act, to recover damages under the Death act for causing the death of Carlo Rossi, the plaintiff’s intestate, on the 30th of January, 1923, in the Greenville yards of'the defendant company in Jersey City, New Jersey. The plaintiff’s intestate, Carlo Rossi, had been employed as a track laborer there for some time. He was killed by a draft of three freight cars, which came down a gravity incline. The. trial resulted in a verdigt for the plaintiff of $5,000. The defendant obtained a rule and writes down eight reasons for [951]*951a new trial. It is argued that the evidence did not justify the submission of defendant’s liability to tbe jury. This, we think, is not so. Questions of fact were involved, hence we cannot disturb the verdict on that ground. Next, it is urged the verdict is excessive and not justified by the evidence. Our reading of the testimony leads us to. the same conclusion. The deceased had a wife and daughter living in Italy. He made remittances to his wife at various times of small amounts. We think the verdict should be reduced to three tlious. - ’ dollars ($3,000), and if the plaintiff will remit the excess the judgment may stand for three thousand dollars. ($3,000), otherwise the rude will be made absolute.

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

Per Curiam.

This was an action brought under the Federal Employers’ Liability act, to recover damages under the Death act for causing the death of Carlo Rossi, the plaintiff’s intestate, on the 30th of January, 1923, in the Greenville yards of'the defendant company in Jersey City, New Jersey. The plaintiff’s intestate, Carlo Rossi, had been employed as a track laborer there for some time. He was killed by a draft of three freight cars, which came down a gravity incline. The. trial resulted in a verdigt for the plaintiff of $5,000. The defendant obtained a rule and writes down eight reasons for [951]*951a new trial. It is argued that the evidence did not justify the submission of defendant’s liability to tbe jury. This, we think, is not so. Questions of fact were involved, hence we cannot disturb the verdict on that ground. Next, it is urged the verdict is excessive and not justified by the evidence. Our reading of the testimony leads us to. the same conclusion. The deceased had a wife and daughter living in Italy. He made remittances to his wife at various times of small amounts. We think the verdict should be reduced to three tlious. - ’ dollars ($3,000), and if the plaintiff will remit the excess the judgment may stand for three thousand dollars. ($3,000), otherwise the rude will be made absolute.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 N.J. Misc. 950, 1924 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 49, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/donnise-v-pennsylvania-railroad-nj-1924.