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

8 A.2d 332, 123 N.J.L. 364, 1939 N.J. LEXIS 396
Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided September 22, 1939·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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

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

8 A.2d 332 (Piscatore v. v. La Rosa & Sons, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Migliozzi v. Safeway Stores, Inc.
144 A.2d 1 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1958)