Swenty v. Obermeier

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Swenty v. Obermeier

135 A. 925, 5 N.J. Misc. 157, 1927 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 362

DecidedJanuary 19, 1927

StatusPublished

This text of 135 A. 925 (Swenty v. Obermeier) 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

Swenty v. Obermeier, 135 A. 925, 5 N.J. Misc. 157, 1927 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 362 (N.J. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The defendant obtained a rule to show cause in this case why the verdict of $3,000 for personal injuries, in favor' of the infant plaintiff, and verdict of $669 in favor of the father, should not be set aside.

The injuries were caused by the explosion of a gasoline tank on December 15th, 1924, at Rockaway, New Jersey. The tank exploded in the defendant’s garage while being repaired.

The defendant writes down eight reasons for a new trial, which are argued in the brief under two heads, viz., the infant plaintiff, Stephen W. Swenty, stood in a place of danger,

going beyond the bounds of his invitation, and the damages awarded by the jury are excessive. These were questions of fact properly submitted to the jury under the evidence. We see no reason for disturbing the verdicts. The rule to show cause is therefore discharged.

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

Per Curiam.

The defendant obtained a rule to show cause in this case why the verdict of $3,000 for personal injuries, in favor' of the infant plaintiff, and verdict of $669 in favor of the father, should not be set aside.

The injuries were caused by the explosion of a gasoline tank on December 15th, 1924, at Rockaway, New Jersey. The tank exploded in the defendant’s garage while being repaired.

The defendant writes down eight reasons for a new trial, which are argued in the brief under two heads, viz., the infant plaintiff, Stephen W. Swenty, stood in a place of danger,

going beyond the bounds of his invitation, and the damages awarded by the jury are excessive. These were questions of fact properly submitted to the jury under the evidence. We see no reason for disturbing the verdicts. The rule to show cause is therefore discharged.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

135 A. 925, 5 N.J. Misc. 157, 1927 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 362, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/swenty-v-obermeier-nj-1927.