Franklin v. Wiener

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Franklin v. Wiener

138 A. 517, 5 N.J. Misc. 856, 1927 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 108

DecidedAugust 26, 1927

StatusPublished

This text of 138 A. 517 (Franklin v. Wiener) 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

Franklin v. Wiener, 138 A. 517, 5 N.J. Misc. 856, 1927 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 108 (N.J. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff has a verdict of $5,000, and the single question before us is the alleged excessiveness thereof.

Plaintiff’s right leg was broken at, or near, the thigh, and he was otherwise injured and suffered facial paralysis. His left leg was crippled prior to the accident. His expenses in seeking a cure, &c., were about $600. His loss of wages was from $900 to $1,000, about a recovery for which there is some controversy because of the fact that they were regularly paid by his employer. Defendant claims he therefore had no recoverable loss in that direction, although the plaintiff contends that such payments were made him upon the understanding that they were made to him to cover a financial emergency and were to be repaid by him to his employer.

[857]*857Aside from this, however, our examination of the proofs satisfies us that the verdict is not excessive.

The rule to show cause will therefore be discharged, with costs.

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

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff has a verdict of $5,000, and the single question before us is the alleged excessiveness thereof.

Plaintiff’s right leg was broken at, or near, the thigh, and he was otherwise injured and suffered facial paralysis. His left leg was crippled prior to the accident. His expenses in seeking a cure, &c., were about $600. His loss of wages was from $900 to $1,000, about a recovery for which there is some controversy because of the fact that they were regularly paid by his employer. Defendant claims he therefore had no recoverable loss in that direction, although the plaintiff contends that such payments were made him upon the understanding that they were made to him to cover a financial emergency and were to be repaid by him to his employer.

[857]*857Aside from this, however, our examination of the proofs satisfies us that the verdict is not excessive.

The rule to show cause will therefore be discharged, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 A. 517, 5 N.J. Misc. 856, 1927 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 108, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/franklin-v-wiener-nj-1927.