Mandel v. Public Service Transportation Co.

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Mandel v. Public Service Transportation Co.

147 A. 920, 7 N.J. Misc. 954, 1929 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 101

DecidedNovember 4, 1929

StatusPublished

This text of 147 A. 920 (Mandel v. Public Service Transportation 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

Mandel v. Public Service Transportation Co., 147 A. 920, 7 N.J. Misc. 954, 1929 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 101 (N.J. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

Píse Cubiam.

The plaintiff Mrs. Mandel brought suit to recover compensation for injuries received by her while alighting from a bus belonging to the defendant company and in which she was a passenger. Her husband joined to recover compensation for the expenses incurred by him by reason of his wife’s injuries and for the loss of her services and society. The jury found a verdict in favor of each of the plaintiffs and we are asked to set this verdict aside upon the ground that it is contrary to the weight of the evidence on the question of the defendant’s liability.

If the testimony submitted on the part of the plaintiffs was a true statement of the facts relating to the happening of the accident, the jury was entirely justified in its action; if the testimony submitted on the part of the defendant was true, no cause of action was proved against him. The jury saw the witnesses called by the respective parties and heard the testimony given by them. They believed the witnesses of the plaintiff and we cannot say that they were not warranted in doing so.

So, believing they were entirely justified in the verdict rendered, the rule to show cause will be discharged.

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

Píse Cubiam.

The plaintiff Mrs. Mandel brought suit to recover compensation for injuries received by her while alighting from a bus belonging to the defendant company and in which she was a passenger. Her husband joined to recover compensation for the expenses incurred by him by reason of his wife’s injuries and for the loss of her services and society. The jury found a verdict in favor of each of the plaintiffs and we are asked to set this verdict aside upon the ground that it is contrary to the weight of the evidence on the question of the defendant’s liability.

If the testimony submitted on the part of the plaintiffs was a true statement of the facts relating to the happening of the accident, the jury was entirely justified in its action; if the testimony submitted on the part of the defendant was true, no cause of action was proved against him. The jury saw the witnesses called by the respective parties and heard the testimony given by them. They believed the witnesses of the plaintiff and we cannot say that they were not warranted in doing so.

So, believing they were entirely justified in the verdict rendered, the rule to show cause will be discharged.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

147 A. 920, 7 N.J. Misc. 954, 1929 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 101, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mandel-v-public-service-transportation-co-nj-1929.