Spranz v. Vilardi

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Spranz v. Vilardi

147 A. 924, 7 N.J. Misc. 963, 1929 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 69

DecidedNovember 7, 1929

StatusPublished

This text of 147 A. 924 (Spranz v. Vilardi) 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

Spranz v. Vilardi, 147 A. 924, 7 N.J. Misc. 963, 1929 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 69 (N.J. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

Peb Cebiam.

This is defendant’s rule for a new trial based on the claim that the damages awarded ($1,250) are excessive. The action was to recover damages for injuries to plaintiff’s real property, No. 425 Twenty-fifth street, Guttenberg, caused, it was claimed, by the negligence of the defendants in exploding dynamite in excavation work on the adjoining premises. There was also a claim in the complaint for damages that the plaintiff suffered in his business in addition to the damage to the land and premises, but no evidence was adduced that the plaintiff suffered any injury in this regard. The proof as to the depreciation of the property was that it was $1,000. Evidence was also given to show that it cost $663 to make the necessary repairs. While there was some statement by the wife of the plaintiff that the crockery ware and pictures in the building were broken, they are not included in the complaint, nor is there any evidence from which the jury could infer their value.

[964]*964We think therefore we are limited to the consideration of the proofs as.to damages to the building itself, and under these proofs the actual limit of injury shown is $1,000. If the plaintiff will accept this sum in satisfaction of the judgment the rule will be discharged; otherwise, it will be made absolute.

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

Peb Cebiam.

This is defendant’s rule for a new trial based on the claim that the damages awarded ($1,250) are excessive. The action was to recover damages for injuries to plaintiff’s real property, No. 425 Twenty-fifth street, Guttenberg, caused, it was claimed, by the negligence of the defendants in exploding dynamite in excavation work on the adjoining premises. There was also a claim in the complaint for damages that the plaintiff suffered in his business in addition to the damage to the land and premises, but no evidence was adduced that the plaintiff suffered any injury in this regard. The proof as to the depreciation of the property was that it was $1,000. Evidence was also given to show that it cost $663 to make the necessary repairs. While there was some statement by the wife of the plaintiff that the crockery ware and pictures in the building were broken, they are not included in the complaint, nor is there any evidence from which the jury could infer their value.

[964]*964We think therefore we are limited to the consideration of the proofs as.to damages to the building itself, and under these proofs the actual limit of injury shown is $1,000. If the plaintiff will accept this sum in satisfaction of the judgment the rule will be discharged; otherwise, it will be made absolute.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

147 A. 924, 7 N.J. Misc. 963, 1929 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 69, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spranz-v-vilardi-nj-1929.