Sussman v. Yellow Taxicab Co.

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Sussman v. Yellow Taxicab Co.

145 A. 470, 7 N.J. Misc. 325, 1929 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 323

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedMarch 28, 1929

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 145 A. 470 (Sussman v. Yellow Taxicab 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.

Bluebook

Sussman v. Yellow Taxicab Co., 145 A. 470, 7 N.J. Misc. 325, 1929 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 323 (N.J. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is plaintiff’s rule to show cause on the ground of inadequacy of damages.

The plaintiff, a dentist in active practice, earning according to his testimony some $25,000 a year over expenses, was injured by having his hand jammed in-the door of a taxicab of the defendant company, necessitating the amputation of about half of the first finger with incidental injury to two other fingers, causing stiffness. The testimony showed with substantial clearness that the plaintiff’s right hand was permanently crippled.

The jury found a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $3,000, and counsel for the defendant conceded on the argument that this verdict is inadequate, but claimed that it ought to stand because as they said the jury had serious doubt whether the plaintiff ought to recover anything under the circumstances, and that the verdict was the result of a [326]*326compromise. It is well settled that a verdict under such circumstances cannot stand. The question then remains whether the new trial should be limited to damages only. The trial judge undertook to make, this limitation of the rule, but we do not feel controlled by such limitation in this court. Faggioni v. Weiss, 128 Atl. Rep. 540; 3 N. J. Mis. R. 371; De Peole v. Passaic City Steam Laundry, 137 Atl. Rep. 890; 5 N. J. Mis. R. 687; Infirri v. Staseak, 4 Id. 915; Wilentz v. Lonky, 6 Id. 711. We incline to the view that there should be a new trial at large. Such will be the order.

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

Per Curiam.

This is plaintiff’s rule to show cause on the ground of inadequacy of damages.

The plaintiff, a dentist in active practice, earning according to his testimony some $25,000 a year over expenses, was injured by having his hand jammed in-the door of a taxicab of the defendant company, necessitating the amputation of about half of the first finger with incidental injury to two other fingers, causing stiffness. The testimony showed with substantial clearness that the plaintiff’s right hand was permanently crippled.

The jury found a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $3,000, and counsel for the defendant conceded on the argument that this verdict is inadequate, but claimed that it ought to stand because as they said the jury had serious doubt whether the plaintiff ought to recover anything under the circumstances, and that the verdict was the result of a [326]*326compromise. It is well settled that a verdict under such circumstances cannot stand. The question then remains whether the new trial should be limited to damages only. The trial judge undertook to make, this limitation of the rule, but we do not feel controlled by such limitation in this court. Faggioni v. Weiss, 128 Atl. Rep. 540; 3 N. J. Mis. R. 371; De Peole v. Passaic City Steam Laundry, 137 Atl. Rep. 890; 5 N. J. Mis. R. 687; Infirri v. Staseak, 4 Id. 915; Wilentz v. Lonky, 6 Id. 711. We incline to the view that there should be a new trial at large. Such will be the order.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

145 A. 470, 7 N.J. Misc. 325, 1929 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 323, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sussman-v-yellow-taxicab-co-nj-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack