Lanning v. Trenton & Mercer County Traction Corp.

130 A. 444, 3 N.J. Misc. 1006, 1925 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 66
CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey
DecidedOctober 7, 1925
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 130 A. 444 (Lanning v. Trenton & Mercer County Traction Corp.) 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
Lanning v. Trenton & Mercer County Traction Corp., 130 A. 444, 3 N.J. Misc. 1006, 1925 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 66 (N.J. 1925).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This suit was brought by the plaintiff to recover compensation for injuries received by Mrs. Banning while a passenger' in a car of the defendant company, for the expenses incurred pv her husband in the treatment of her injuries, and also compensation for the loss of her services and society ,as a .wife. The jury found that the injuries which Mrs. Lanning ,has sustained- were the direct result of the negligence of the defendant’s motorman in the operation of the e^r, and awarded her $2,500 as compensation. - At the same time they returned a verdict of no cap.se of action as to the claim of the husband, although the rendition of the medical services [1007]*1007was not disputed, nor was the propriety of the charges made for such services challenged. These two verdicts are absolutely irreconcilable and demonstrate the unfitness of the jury to determine the respective rights and obligations of tin1 .parties to this litigation; for, if the traction company was responsible for the injuries received by the wife, it follows as matter of course that the husband was entitled to recover from the company such moneys as he had expended in the treatment of the injuries received by his wife, and also a reasonable compensation for the loss of her services and society.

For this reason the rule to show cause will be made absolute.

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

Related

Guinn Ex Rel. Guinn v. Millard Truck Lines, Inc.
134 N.W.2d 549 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1965)
VIRGINIA CHANCE v. Lawry's, Inc.
374 P.2d 185 (California Supreme Court, 1962)
Skadal v. Brown
351 S.W.2d 684 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1961)
Berry v. Foster
287 S.W.2d 16 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1955)
Brendel v. Public Service Elec. and Gas Co.
101 A.2d 56 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1953)
McGilvray v. Powell 700 North, Inc.
186 F.2d 909 (Seventh Circuit, 1951)
Lansburgh & Bro. v. Clark
127 F.2d 331 (D.C. Circuit, 1942)
Rich v. Central Electrotype Foundry Co.
3 A.2d 584 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1939)
Ruby v. Quotidian
183 A. 910 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1936)
Swiencicki v. Wieczerzak
140 A. 248 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1928)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
130 A. 444, 3 N.J. Misc. 1006, 1925 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 66, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lanning-v-trenton-mercer-county-traction-corp-nj-1925.