Ryrie v. Lowe

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Ryrie v. Lowe

157 A. 245, 9 N.J. Misc. 1059, 1931 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 166

DecidedOctober 5, 1931

StatusPublished

This text of 157 A. 245 (Ryrie v. Lowe) 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

Ryrie v. Lowe, 157 A. 245, 9 N.J. Misc. 1059, 1931 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 166 (N.J. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Pek Cttbiam.

On April 2d, 1930, the plaintiff, an aged man, was struck by the defendant’s automobile on Ferry street near Mt. Ephriam avenue, Camden. lie had judgment for $8,500. Two questions are submitted on this rule: (1) The verdict [1060]*1060was against the weight of evidence; (2) the verdict was excessive.

Our examination of the record leads us to believe that by the clear weight of evidence the plaintiffs right of recovery was established. The proofs show that plaintiff, after he had alighted from a trolley car at a regular stop at the Evergreen Cemetery gate, was struck by the defendant’s automobile before he could reach the sidewalk. The' trolley car had stopped in the regular way and the proofs show that the plaintiff was struck before the trolley had started up again. The proofs were sufficient for the jury to infer that the defendant attempted to pass a standing trolley and in so doing injured the plaintiff.

The proofs of damages are less clear, however, than they should be. There was some proof that the plaintiff was seventy-two years of age and some that he was eighty-two years of age. The fracture of the skull from which he suffered had impaired his memory, but there was little or no evidence adduced from which the jury could find to what extent, if any, his earnings had been impaired.

Unless the plaintiff consents to a reduction of the verdict to $5,000, the rule will be made absolute; otherwise a discharge may be entered.

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

Pek Cttbiam.

On April 2d, 1930, the plaintiff, an aged man, was struck by the defendant’s automobile on Ferry street near Mt. Ephriam avenue, Camden. lie had judgment for $8,500. Two questions are submitted on this rule: (1) The verdict [1060]*1060was against the weight of evidence; (2) the verdict was excessive.

Our examination of the record leads us to believe that by the clear weight of evidence the plaintiffs right of recovery was established. The proofs show that plaintiff, after he had alighted from a trolley car at a regular stop at the Evergreen Cemetery gate, was struck by the defendant’s automobile before he could reach the sidewalk. The' trolley car had stopped in the regular way and the proofs show that the plaintiff was struck before the trolley had started up again. The proofs were sufficient for the jury to infer that the defendant attempted to pass a standing trolley and in so doing injured the plaintiff.

The proofs of damages are less clear, however, than they should be. There was some proof that the plaintiff was seventy-two years of age and some that he was eighty-two years of age. The fracture of the skull from which he suffered had impaired his memory, but there was little or no evidence adduced from which the jury could find to what extent, if any, his earnings had been impaired.

Unless the plaintiff consents to a reduction of the verdict to $5,000, the rule will be made absolute; otherwise a discharge may be entered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

157 A. 245, 9 N.J. Misc. 1059, 1931 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 166, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ryrie-v-lowe-nj-1931.