Geiger v. Worthen & Aldrich Co.

49 A. 918, 66 N.J.L. 576, 37 Vroom 576, 1901 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 140
CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey
DecidedJune 10, 1901
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 49 A. 918 (Geiger v. Worthen & Aldrich 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
Geiger v. Worthen & Aldrich Co., 49 A. 918, 66 N.J.L. 576, 37 Vroom 576, 1901 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 140 (N.J. 1901).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff in this case obtained a verdict for damages at the Passaic Circuit for the loss sustained by the next of kin of the deceased, who lost his life on the night of February 5th, 1900, by the breaking of a dam at the defendant’s mill, in Bloomfield, Essex county. The defendant was allowed a rule to show cause by the trial judge why a new trial should not be granted. We are satisfied, from the evidence, that the deceased met his death by reason of the breaking of defendant’s dam while the deceased was on duty as watchman in the employ of the defendant. We do not find any error in the rulings of the trial judge who presided, nor do we find that the verdict was against the clear weight of the evidence. We do think, however, that the verdict of $7,000 is excessive. The law limits the recovery to damages for the pecuniary injury resulting from such death to the wife and next of kin of such deceased person, and for that alone.

Considering that the deceased was about forty-seven years of age, and was not earning above $10 a week, from which his own expenses must be deducted; that his wife was about forty years of age, and his two children eighteen and fourteen years of age, and considering also the various contingencies that are to be regarded in estimating the probable pecuniary loss to the family, we think a verdict for $4,000 as large as should he allowed to stand against the defendant.

If the plaintiff will- remit all above that amount, the verdict may stand; otherwise the rule must be-made absolute.

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

Related

St. Louis S. F. R. Co. v. Long
1913 OK 751 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1913)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
49 A. 918, 66 N.J.L. 576, 37 Vroom 576, 1901 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 140, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/geiger-v-worthen-aldrich-co-nj-1901.