Scarano v. Lindale

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Scarano v. Lindale

3 A.2d 633, 121 N.J.L. 549, 1939 N.J. LEXIS 267

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedJanuary 13, 1939

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 3 A.2d 633 (Scarano v. Lindale) 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

Scarano v. Lindale, 3 A.2d 633, 121 N.J.L. 549, 1939 N.J. LEXIS 267 (N.J. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

*550 The opinion of the court was delivered by

Campbell, Chancellor.

This in an appeal, by the Victor Lynn Transportation Company, from a judgment against it and Howard Lindale, in favor of the respondents, resulting from a trial and verdict in an action in the Supreme Court tried at the Mercer County Circuit.

The defendant below, Howard Lindale, was operating a tractor-trailer, in the city of Trenton at the time of the occurrence complained of and it is contended that his negligence was the proximate cause of the happening bringing injury to the respondents.

'There are only two grounds of appeal calling for, and Tequiring, the attention of this court; they are error in refusing to nonsuit and direct a verdict in favor of the appellant. The entire question involved is whether or not the proofs were such that the trial court could rule, as a matter of law, that Howard Lindale, the operator of the tractor-trailer, was not .at the time of the happening the servant of the appellant but was an independent contractor.

We are not impressed by the argument of the appellant but on the contrary conclude that it would have been error on the part of the learned trial judge to have directed a nonsuit or a verdict in favor of the appellant. In passing upon such motions the evidence will not be weighed. All the proofs which support the claim of the party against whom the motions are made must be accepted as true and he is entitled to the benefit of all legitimate inferences which may be drawn therefrom. Where fair minded men might honestly differ as to the conclusions to be drawn from the proofs, the questions at issue should be submitted to the jury. Lipschitz v. New York and New Jersey Prod. Corp., 111 N. J. L. 392, 394; Morris v. Muller, 113 N. J. L. 46, 51.

The judgment under review will be affirmed, with costs.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Parker, Case, Bodine, Heher, Perskie, Porter, Hetfield, Dear, Wells, WolfsKeil, Rafferty, JJ. 13.

For reversal — Donges, Walker, JJ. 2.

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

*550 The opinion of the court was delivered by

Campbell, Chancellor.

This in an appeal, by the Victor Lynn Transportation Company, from a judgment against it and Howard Lindale, in favor of the respondents, resulting from a trial and verdict in an action in the Supreme Court tried at the Mercer County Circuit.

The defendant below, Howard Lindale, was operating a tractor-trailer, in the city of Trenton at the time of the occurrence complained of and it is contended that his negligence was the proximate cause of the happening bringing injury to the respondents.

'There are only two grounds of appeal calling for, and Tequiring, the attention of this court; they are error in refusing to nonsuit and direct a verdict in favor of the appellant. The entire question involved is whether or not the proofs were such that the trial court could rule, as a matter of law, that Howard Lindale, the operator of the tractor-trailer, was not .at the time of the happening the servant of the appellant but was an independent contractor.

We are not impressed by the argument of the appellant but on the contrary conclude that it would have been error on the part of the learned trial judge to have directed a nonsuit or a verdict in favor of the appellant. In passing upon such motions the evidence will not be weighed. All the proofs which support the claim of the party against whom the motions are made must be accepted as true and he is entitled to the benefit of all legitimate inferences which may be drawn therefrom. Where fair minded men might honestly differ as to the conclusions to be drawn from the proofs, the questions at issue should be submitted to the jury. Lipschitz v. New York and New Jersey Prod. Corp., 111 N. J. L. 392, 394; Morris v. Muller, 113 N. J. L. 46, 51.

The judgment under review will be affirmed, with costs.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Parker, Case, Bodine, Heher, Perskie, Porter, Hetfield, Dear, Wells, WolfsKeil, Rafferty, JJ. 13.

For reversal — Donges, Walker, JJ. 2.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 A.2d 633, 121 N.J.L. 549, 1939 N.J. LEXIS 267, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scarano-v-lindale-nj-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack