Miles v. Parrish

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Miles v. Parrish

226 A.2d 833, 48 N.J. 554, 1967 N.J. LEXIS 279

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedFebruary 20, 1967

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 226 A.2d 833 (Miles v. Parrish) 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

Miles v. Parrish, 226 A.2d 833, 48 N.J. 554, 1967 N.J. LEXIS 279 (N.J. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered

Per Curiam.

This action sought damages as a result of personal injuries sustained by the infant plaintiff following a fall from a play apparatus located in the yard of the defendant, who was a neighbor. The trial court granted a judgment of involuntary dismissal on the plaintiffs’ opening. The Appellate Division, in an unreported opinion, reversed and remanded for a new trial on the thesis of impropriety in ordinarily dismissing a case before a plaintiff has introduced the evidence in support of his claim. We granted certification. 47 N. J. 574 (1966).

At the oral argument both counsel agreed that the facts were undisputed and that no more could be presented evidentially than was outlined in detail in the opening. In this posture, we are satisfied that there is not enough to raise a jury question as to any negligence by the defendant and therefore that the trial court was correct in dismissing the action.

The judgment of the Appellate Division is reversed and that of the trial court reinstated. No costs.

For reversal — Chief Justice Weintraub and Justices Jacobs, Francis, Hall, Schettino and Haneman — 6.

For affirmance — None.

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

The opinion of the court was delivered

Per Curiam.

This action sought damages as a result of personal injuries sustained by the infant plaintiff following a fall from a play apparatus located in the yard of the defendant, who was a neighbor. The trial court granted a judgment of involuntary dismissal on the plaintiffs’ opening. The Appellate Division, in an unreported opinion, reversed and remanded for a new trial on the thesis of impropriety in ordinarily dismissing a case before a plaintiff has introduced the evidence in support of his claim. We granted certification. 47 N. J. 574 (1966).

At the oral argument both counsel agreed that the facts were undisputed and that no more could be presented evidentially than was outlined in detail in the opening. In this posture, we are satisfied that there is not enough to raise a jury question as to any negligence by the defendant and therefore that the trial court was correct in dismissing the action.

The judgment of the Appellate Division is reversed and that of the trial court reinstated. No costs.

For reversal — Chief Justice Weintraub and Justices Jacobs, Francis, Hall, Schettino and Haneman — 6.

For affirmance — None.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

226 A.2d 833, 48 N.J. 554, 1967 N.J. LEXIS 279, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miles-v-parrish-nj-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack