Piscatore v. v. La Rosa & Sons, Inc.

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Piscatore v. v. La Rosa & Sons, Inc.

8 A.2d 332, 123 N.J.L. 364, 1939 N.J. LEXIS 396

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedSeptember 22, 1939

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 8 A.2d 332 (Piscatore v. v. La Rosa & Sons, Inc.) 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

Piscatore v. v. La Rosa & Sons, Inc., 8 A.2d 332, 123 N.J.L. 364, 1939 N.J. LEXIS 396 (N.J. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed, for the reasons stated by Mr. Justice Parker in the Supreme Court. We add, however, what the opinion writer doubtless had in mind, that the absence from the stipulated facts of proof tending to show that Mrs. Piscatore had eaten or drunk anything else that might have made her ill in nowise lifted from the plaintiffs the burden of proving affirmatively that the defendant’s foodstuff was unwholesome and deleterious and that Mrs. Piscatore’s illness resulted therefrom. It was not incumbent upon defendant to prove that the illness was due to other causes; nor would it *365 have been sufficient for the plaintiffs to show that the ailment might have resulted from the eating of the macaroni. Nevertheless, we think that the proofs support the factual finding in plaintiff’s favor.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Case, Bodine, Donges, Heher, Poetes, Heteield, Deae, Wells, WolesKeil, RaeEEETY, JJ. 11.

For reversal — The Chibe Justice, Hague, JJ. 2.

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

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed, for the reasons stated by Mr. Justice Parker in the Supreme Court. We add, however, what the opinion writer doubtless had in mind, that the absence from the stipulated facts of proof tending to show that Mrs. Piscatore had eaten or drunk anything else that might have made her ill in nowise lifted from the plaintiffs the burden of proving affirmatively that the defendant’s foodstuff was unwholesome and deleterious and that Mrs. Piscatore’s illness resulted therefrom. It was not incumbent upon defendant to prove that the illness was due to other causes; nor would it *365 have been sufficient for the plaintiffs to show that the ailment might have resulted from the eating of the macaroni. Nevertheless, we think that the proofs support the factual finding in plaintiff’s favor.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Case, Bodine, Donges, Heher, Poetes, Heteield, Deae, Wells, WolesKeil, RaeEEETY, JJ. 11.

For reversal — The Chibe Justice, Hague, JJ. 2.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 A.2d 332, 123 N.J.L. 364, 1939 N.J. LEXIS 396, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/piscatore-v-v-la-rosa-sons-inc-nj-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack