Ordziejewski v. Elvin

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Ordziejewski v. Elvin

156 A. 925, 9 N.J. Misc. 1142, 1931 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 101

DecidedNovember 16, 1931

StatusPublished

This text of 156 A. 925 (Ordziejewski v. Elvin) 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

Ordziejewski v. Elvin, 156 A. 925, 9 N.J. Misc. 1142, 1931 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 101 (N.J. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This case comes up on plaintiff’s rule to show cause why a verdict in the amount of $750 rendered for the plaintiff and against the defendant at the Passaic Circuit should not be set aside on the ground of inadequacy and a new trial granted as to damages only. The single reason presented is. that the damages awarded by the jury are inadequate. Whether or not the damages are inadequate depends upon the extent and permanency of the injuries as determined by the jury. The evidence presented by the plaintiff is divergent. That of the attending physician reflects a less serious condition than that of a specialist who did not render professional services to the plaintiff and whose single examination of the plaintiff was shortly preceding and apparently for the sole purpose of the trial. We are in doubt as to whether the verdict is so plainly inadequate as to justify our interference. Herstein v. Choate, 4 N. J. Mis. R. 996. But the defendant does not resist a trial de novo. Such a direction may be made on the present rule (Doucha v. Hamilton, 8 N. J. Mis. R. 890), and we think that the problem of the case may best be met by that solution.

The verdict will be set aside in toto and a new trial granted.

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

Per Curiam.

This case comes up on plaintiff’s rule to show cause why a verdict in the amount of $750 rendered for the plaintiff and against the defendant at the Passaic Circuit should not be set aside on the ground of inadequacy and a new trial granted as to damages only. The single reason presented is. that the damages awarded by the jury are inadequate. Whether or not the damages are inadequate depends upon the extent and permanency of the injuries as determined by the jury. The evidence presented by the plaintiff is divergent. That of the attending physician reflects a less serious condition than that of a specialist who did not render professional services to the plaintiff and whose single examination of the plaintiff was shortly preceding and apparently for the sole purpose of the trial. We are in doubt as to whether the verdict is so plainly inadequate as to justify our interference. Herstein v. Choate, 4 N. J. Mis. R. 996. But the defendant does not resist a trial de novo. Such a direction may be made on the present rule (Doucha v. Hamilton, 8 N. J. Mis. R. 890), and we think that the problem of the case may best be met by that solution.

The verdict will be set aside in toto and a new trial granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

156 A. 925, 9 N.J. Misc. 1142, 1931 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 101, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ordziejewski-v-elvin-nj-1931.