Shamberger v. Nisky

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Shamberger v. Nisky

147 A. 644, 7 N.J. Misc. 1011, 1929 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 58

DecidedNovember 9, 1929

StatusPublished

This text of 147 A. 644 (Shamberger v. Nisky) 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

Shamberger v. Nisky, 147 A. 644, 7 N.J. Misc. 1011, 1929 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 58 (N.J. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Cubiam.

The plaintiff was injured in a.collision between the defendant Yan Blarcom’s automobile, and operated by him, at the' time of the collision, and an automobile of the defendant Mary Nisky, in whose car the plaintiff was a passenger, at the invitation of the former, and who was opreating her ear.

There was a verdict for the defendants. It is difficult to comprehend upon what reasonable theory the jury found a verdict for the defendants. It is certainly clear, that if both had exercised reasonable care the accident would not have happened. According to the testimony, the jury could have found both defendants guilty of negligence. It may very well be, that neither could have recovered any damages against each other, because of their joint negligence, but as the plaintiff was not chargeable with negligence, contributing to her injury, she being a passenger in the car, she was entitled to a recovery, if the jury believed the testimony against both defendants.

The rule to show cause is made absolute.

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

Pee Cubiam.

The plaintiff was injured in a.collision between the defendant Yan Blarcom’s automobile, and operated by him, at the' time of the collision, and an automobile of the defendant Mary Nisky, in whose car the plaintiff was a passenger, at the invitation of the former, and who was opreating her ear.

There was a verdict for the defendants. It is difficult to comprehend upon what reasonable theory the jury found a verdict for the defendants. It is certainly clear, that if both had exercised reasonable care the accident would not have happened. According to the testimony, the jury could have found both defendants guilty of negligence. It may very well be, that neither could have recovered any damages against each other, because of their joint negligence, but as the plaintiff was not chargeable with negligence, contributing to her injury, she being a passenger in the car, she was entitled to a recovery, if the jury believed the testimony against both defendants.

The rule to show cause is made absolute.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

147 A. 644, 7 N.J. Misc. 1011, 1929 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 58, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shamberger-v-nisky-nj-1929.