Krauss v. Dowd

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Krauss v. Dowd

164 A. 454, 110 N.J.L. 344, 1933 N.J. LEXIS 491

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedFebruary 13, 1933

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 164 A. 454 (Krauss v. Dowd) 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

Krauss v. Dowd, 164 A. 454, 110 N.J.L. 344, 1933 N.J. LEXIS 491 (N.J. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff sustained personal injury through a collision between two automobiles, in one of which she was riding as a passenger. The defendant-appellant was the owner and the driver of the other automobile. Plaintiff had a verdict and judgment, and defendant appeals.

*345 The sole ground of appeal assigned is that the trial court refused to nonsuit the plaintiff. The sole ground urged for a nonsuit was that “the evidence produced did not establish negligence on the part of the defendant which was the proximate cause of the accident, and that there had been no negligence shown on behalf of the defendant.”

The testimony for the plaintiff indicated that the car belonging to her employer and in which she was riding, moving slowly in congested traffic and approaching a street intersection where there was a traffic light, and in rear of several other cars, was held up by the light changing to red, and that about at that juncture defendant, having finished taking on gasoline at a service station across the space allotted for a sidewalk and to the right of the car in which plaintiff was riding, drove his car across the sidewalk space into the street and against the rear of the plaintiff’s car, all but upsetting it and severely injuring the plaintiff.

Purther comment seems needless. The judgment will be affirmed.

For affirmance — -Parker, Lloyd, Case, Bodine, Donges, Brogan, IIeher, Van Buskirk, Kays, Heteield, Dear, Wells, JJ. 12.

For reversal — None.

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

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff sustained personal injury through a collision between two automobiles, in one of which she was riding as a passenger. The defendant-appellant was the owner and the driver of the other automobile. Plaintiff had a verdict and judgment, and defendant appeals.

*345 The sole ground of appeal assigned is that the trial court refused to nonsuit the plaintiff. The sole ground urged for a nonsuit was that “the evidence produced did not establish negligence on the part of the defendant which was the proximate cause of the accident, and that there had been no negligence shown on behalf of the defendant.”

The testimony for the plaintiff indicated that the car belonging to her employer and in which she was riding, moving slowly in congested traffic and approaching a street intersection where there was a traffic light, and in rear of several other cars, was held up by the light changing to red, and that about at that juncture defendant, having finished taking on gasoline at a service station across the space allotted for a sidewalk and to the right of the car in which plaintiff was riding, drove his car across the sidewalk space into the street and against the rear of the plaintiff’s car, all but upsetting it and severely injuring the plaintiff.

Purther comment seems needless. The judgment will be affirmed.

For affirmance — -Parker, Lloyd, Case, Bodine, Donges, Brogan, IIeher, Van Buskirk, Kays, Heteield, Dear, Wells, JJ. 12.

For reversal — None.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

164 A. 454, 110 N.J.L. 344, 1933 N.J. LEXIS 491, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/krauss-v-dowd-nj-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack