Schenerman v. Manhattan Transit Co.
This text of 44 A.2d 38 (Schenerman v. Manhattan Transit Co.) 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.
Opinion
The o]3inion of the court was delivered by
The plaintiff was injured by the defendant’s bus while seated in his parked truck. Error is claimed because of the charge of the court. The court said: “You have heard the medical testimony, which is undisputed by the defendant, as to the conditions resulting to this plaintiff, Mr. Schenerman, as a result of the injuries he suffered in this accident.”
' The defendant called no medical witnesses but was content to rest upon the cross-examination of the plaintiff’s witnesses. Prom an examination of the whole charge, it is clear that the jury could not have misunderstood the court’s meaning that they must weigh and evaluate all the testimony given.
Viewed as a whole, the charge was without error. The judgment will be affirmed.
For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Parker, Case, Bodine, Donges, Perskie, Colie, Oliphant, Wells, Rafferty, Dill, Preund, McGeehan, JJ. -14.
For reversal — Heher, J. 1.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
44 A.2d 38, 133 N.J.L. 262, 1945 N.J. LEXIS 215, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schenerman-v-manhattan-transit-co-nj-1945.