Marcus v. Public Service Co-ordinated Transport

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Marcus v. Public Service Co-ordinated Transport

149 A. 899, 8 N.J. Misc. 147, 1930 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 289

DecidedMarch 3, 1930

StatusPublished

This text of 149 A. 899 (Marcus v. Public Service Co-ordinated Transport) 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

Marcus v. Public Service Co-ordinated Transport, 149 A. 899, 8 N.J. Misc. 147, 1930 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 289 (N.J. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Cukiam.

On April 8th, 1928, at nine p. m., plaintiff’s car, driven by one John Eertig, and in which the plaintiff was a passenger, was being driven southerly on Ogden street, in Newark. As it approached Eector street, a one-way street for westerly traffic only, a bus of the defendant was proceeding northerly on Ogden street. The contention is that the bus made a sharp left-hand turn into Eector street, making such turn before reaching the intersection of the two streets and immediately in front of, and across the path of the oncoming car in which plaintiff was riding. A collision occurred resulting in the demolishing of the plaintiff’s automobile and personal injuries to the plaintiff, and he has a verdict of $5,000 covering both of these items of damage.

This verdict we are asked to set aside for several reasons:

1. Because it is against the weight of the evidence. This we do not find to be so.

2. Because of alleged errors in the charge of the court.. We find that the errors complained of do not exist.

3. The verdict is excessive.

Our consideration of the proofs upon this point leads us to the conclusion that this is so and that an award beyond $3,500 is not warranted.

If, therefore, plaintiff shall, within thirty days from the-entry of an order in accordance with these findings, enter his consent to the reduction of said verdict to. the. sum of' $3,500, the rule to show cause will be discharged, otherwise-it will be made absolute as to damages only and a venire denovo issue for that purpose.

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

Pee Cukiam.

On April 8th, 1928, at nine p. m., plaintiff’s car, driven by one John Eertig, and in which the plaintiff was a passenger, was being driven southerly on Ogden street, in Newark. As it approached Eector street, a one-way street for westerly traffic only, a bus of the defendant was proceeding northerly on Ogden street. The contention is that the bus made a sharp left-hand turn into Eector street, making such turn before reaching the intersection of the two streets and immediately in front of, and across the path of the oncoming car in which plaintiff was riding. A collision occurred resulting in the demolishing of the plaintiff’s automobile and personal injuries to the plaintiff, and he has a verdict of $5,000 covering both of these items of damage.

This verdict we are asked to set aside for several reasons:

1. Because it is against the weight of the evidence. This we do not find to be so.

2. Because of alleged errors in the charge of the court.. We find that the errors complained of do not exist.

3. The verdict is excessive.

Our consideration of the proofs upon this point leads us to the conclusion that this is so and that an award beyond $3,500 is not warranted.

If, therefore, plaintiff shall, within thirty days from the-entry of an order in accordance with these findings, enter his consent to the reduction of said verdict to. the. sum of' $3,500, the rule to show cause will be discharged, otherwise-it will be made absolute as to damages only and a venire denovo issue for that purpose.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

149 A. 899, 8 N.J. Misc. 147, 1930 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 289, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marcus-v-public-service-co-ordinated-transport-nj-1930.