O'Shea v. Public Service Transportation Co.

Supreme Court of New Jersey

O'Shea v. Public Service Transportation Co.

144 A. 923, 7 N.J. Misc. 123, 1929 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 406

DecidedJanuary 16, 1929

StatusPublished

This text of 144 A. 923 (O'Shea 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

O'Shea v. Public Service Transportation Co., 144 A. 923, 7 N.J. Misc. 123, 1929 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 406 (N.J. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff brought the present suit to recover compensation for personal injuries received by her while a passenger-in one of the buses of the Public Service Transportation Company, resulting from a collision between the bus in which she-was riding and a truck belonging to the Keystone Dairy Company. The suit was instituted against the respective owners of the two vehicles, and at the conclusion of the trial the jury returned a verdict of no cause of action as to the Public Service Transportation Company, and awarded the plaintiff $3,000 as-against the Keystone Dairy Company. The latter then applied for and obtained the present rule, and the only ground upon which we are asked to make the rule absolute is that the-verdict is excessive.

Our examination of the testimony sent up with the rule-leads us to the conclusion ’that, if the jury accepted as true-the testimony of the plaintiff and of her attending physician as to the character of the injuries which she received and their effect upon her physical condition, the amount awarded to the-plaintiff cannot be clearly excessive. The jury was .justified in accepting this testimony as accurately showing the character and extent of the injuries received by the plaintiff, and we conclude therefore, that the rule to show cause should be discharged.

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

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff brought the present suit to recover compensation for personal injuries received by her while a passenger-in one of the buses of the Public Service Transportation Company, resulting from a collision between the bus in which she-was riding and a truck belonging to the Keystone Dairy Company. The suit was instituted against the respective owners of the two vehicles, and at the conclusion of the trial the jury returned a verdict of no cause of action as to the Public Service Transportation Company, and awarded the plaintiff $3,000 as-against the Keystone Dairy Company. The latter then applied for and obtained the present rule, and the only ground upon which we are asked to make the rule absolute is that the-verdict is excessive.

Our examination of the testimony sent up with the rule-leads us to the conclusion ’that, if the jury accepted as true-the testimony of the plaintiff and of her attending physician as to the character of the injuries which she received and their effect upon her physical condition, the amount awarded to the-plaintiff cannot be clearly excessive. The jury was .justified in accepting this testimony as accurately showing the character and extent of the injuries received by the plaintiff, and we conclude therefore, that the rule to show cause should be discharged.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

144 A. 923, 7 N.J. Misc. 123, 1929 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 406, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oshea-v-public-service-transportation-co-nj-1929.