Fitzgerald v. Gore

147 A. 469, 7 N.J. Misc. 910, 1929 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 108
Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided October 21, 1929·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff below was a passenger in a car of the defendant, Yellow Cab, Incorporated, which came into collision with a car of the defendants Gore and Cook, and plaintiff being injured brought suit against all three defendants.

The trial of the issue resulted in a nonsuit in favor of the Yellow Cab, Incorporated, and a verdict in favor of plaintiff and against the other defendants for $800.

We are asked to reverse this judgment upon two grounds.

Eirst, because it was error to nonsuit in favor of the defendant, Yelow Cab, Incorporated.

This does not present a ground of error for reversal. Newman v. Fowler, 37 N. J. L. 89; Public Service Railway Co. v. Matteucci, 6 N. J. Adv. R. 1545.

Second, that it was error to refuse to direct a nonsuit in favor of the remaining defendants, the appellants here.

[911] The proofs present facts and circumstances from which their negligence, causing the happening could be found, thus presenting a jury question. There was, therefore, no error in refusing to nonsuit as to them.

The judgment under review is therefore affirmed.

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

Fitzgerald v. Gore, 147 A. 469, 7 N.J. Misc. 910, 1929 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 108 (N.J. 1929).

147 A. 469 (Fitzgerald v. Gore) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Price v. Greenway
167 F.2d 196 (Third Circuit, 1948)
Martin v. Ackman
110 S.W.2d 437 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1937)