Russick v. Atlantic City Railroad

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Russick v. Atlantic City Railroad

134 A. 924, 4 N.J. Misc. 903, 1926 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 69

DecidedNovember 12, 1926

StatusPublished

This text of 134 A. 924 (Russick v. Atlantic City Railroad) 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

Russick v. Atlantic City Railroad, 134 A. 924, 4 N.J. Misc. 903, 1926 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 69 (N.J. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff’s intestate was killed on October 10th, 1924, at a grade crossing of the defendant company, known as Davis road, which crossing was protected by a crossing bell. Plaintiff charged the defendant with negligence in that it failed to give notice of the approach of its train by such crossing bell, and also in that it failed to give either of the warnings, by bell or whistle, required by the statute. Plaintiff has a verdict for $5,000, and defendant has this rule seeking to set aside this verdict. Of the grounds or reasons urged under the rule, only one need be considered, and that is that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. ■ Our consideration of the proofs has brought us to the conclusion that the verdict is against the clear weight of the evidence, upon the question of the negligence charged, and the rule to show cause is therefore made absolute and a venire de novo awarded.

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

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff’s intestate was killed on October 10th, 1924, at a grade crossing of the defendant company, known as Davis road, which crossing was protected by a crossing bell. Plaintiff charged the defendant with negligence in that it failed to give notice of the approach of its train by such crossing bell, and also in that it failed to give either of the warnings, by bell or whistle, required by the statute. Plaintiff has a verdict for $5,000, and defendant has this rule seeking to set aside this verdict. Of the grounds or reasons urged under the rule, only one need be considered, and that is that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. ■ Our consideration of the proofs has brought us to the conclusion that the verdict is against the clear weight of the evidence, upon the question of the negligence charged, and the rule to show cause is therefore made absolute and a venire de novo awarded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 A. 924, 4 N.J. Misc. 903, 1926 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 69, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/russick-v-atlantic-city-railroad-nj-1926.