Petrillo v. Williams

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Petrillo v. Williams

139 A. 926, 5 N.J. Misc. 1007, 1927 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 11

DecidedDecember 1, 1927

StatusPublished

This text of 139 A. 926 (Petrillo v. Williams) 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

Petrillo v. Williams, 139 A. 926, 5 N.J. Misc. 1007, 1927 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 11 (N.J. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This suit was brought to recover compensation for injuries received by the plaintiff in an automobile collision. The plaintiff, while driving his car northerly through a street in Summit known as Eorrest drive, was injured by the collision of his car and that of the defendant, who was traveling westwardly along an intersecting street known as Hobart avenue. The trial resulted in a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, the jury awarding him $5,000. We are asked to set aside this verdict for two reasons — (1) because the finding of the jury that the accident resulted solely from the negligence of the defendant was against the weight of the evidence, and (2) that the verdict is excessive.

Our examination of the testimony sent up with the rule leads us to the conclusion that we would not be justified in interfering with this verdict for either of the reasons specified.

The rule to show cause will be discharged.

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

Per Curiam.

This suit was brought to recover compensation for injuries received by the plaintiff in an automobile collision. The plaintiff, while driving his car northerly through a street in Summit known as Eorrest drive, was injured by the collision of his car and that of the defendant, who was traveling westwardly along an intersecting street known as Hobart avenue. The trial resulted in a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, the jury awarding him $5,000. We are asked to set aside this verdict for two reasons — (1) because the finding of the jury that the accident resulted solely from the negligence of the defendant was against the weight of the evidence, and (2) that the verdict is excessive.

Our examination of the testimony sent up with the rule leads us to the conclusion that we would not be justified in interfering with this verdict for either of the reasons specified.

The rule to show cause will be discharged.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 A. 926, 5 N.J. Misc. 1007, 1927 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 11, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/petrillo-v-williams-nj-1927.