Ryan v. Jones

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Ryan v. Jones

139 A. 430, 5 N.J. Misc. 1006, 1927 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 10

DecidedDecember 1, 1927

StatusPublished

This text of 139 A. 430 (Ryan v. Jones) 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

Ryan v. Jones, 139 A. 430, 5 N.J. Misc. 1006, 1927 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 10 (N.J. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This suit was brought by a boy, four years old, and his father, to recover compensation for injuries received by the boy through being run down by an automobile of the defendants, and for the losses sustained by the father by reason of those injuries. The trial resulted in a verdict in favor of the father, the jury awarding him $500; but it made no finding either in favor of or against the child.

This action on the part of the jury plainly indicates that its members entirely failed to appreciate the duty that they were called upon to perform. If they considered that the defendants were solely responsible for the injuries received by the boy, their obligation was to award compensation to him for those injuries. On the other hand, if they found the contrary to be the fact, then their award to the father was without legal warrant.

The rule to show cause will be made absolute.

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

Per Curiam.

This suit was brought by a boy, four years old, and his father, to recover compensation for injuries received by the boy through being run down by an automobile of the defendants, and for the losses sustained by the father by reason of those injuries. The trial resulted in a verdict in favor of the father, the jury awarding him $500; but it made no finding either in favor of or against the child.

This action on the part of the jury plainly indicates that its members entirely failed to appreciate the duty that they were called upon to perform. If they considered that the defendants were solely responsible for the injuries received by the boy, their obligation was to award compensation to him for those injuries. On the other hand, if they found the contrary to be the fact, then their award to the father was without legal warrant.

The rule to show cause will be made absolute.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 A. 430, 5 N.J. Misc. 1006, 1927 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 10, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ryan-v-jones-nj-1927.