Symes v. Morris County Traction Co.

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Symes v. Morris County Traction Co.

134 A. 819, 1 N.J. Misc. 525, 49 A.L.R. 992, 1923 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 55

DecidedNovember 7, 1923

StatusPublished

This text of 134 A. 819 (Symes v. Morris County Traction 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

Symes v. Morris County Traction Co., 134 A. 819, 1 N.J. Misc. 525, 49 A.L.R. 992, 1923 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 55 (N.J. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This suit was brought to recover damages under the Death act.

The trial resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff for $15,000. The defendant obtained a rule to show cause and writes down ten .reasons for a new trial.

The plaintiff’s intestate was driving a motor truck along Main street in Roekaway in a westerly direction, about 6:10 a. m. in the morning of August 8th, 1922. He ran into and struck a pole used by the defendant company for the support of its feed wires. Two or three minutes of six, i. e., before the accident, the pole had broken and fallen, so that its top part lay across the feed wires used by the defendant, the bottom or base of the pole resting on the sidewalk. The top part of the truck collided with the pole,' resulting in the death of the plaintiff’s intestate. 1

We have examined the reasons filed for a new trial and find no sufficient ground' for disturbing the verdict of the PUL

[526]*526The damages are not excessive. Rhodehouse v. Director General, 95 N. J. L. 355. There is no error in the charge. The traveling public have a right to suppose that there is no dangerous impediment or pitfall in any part of the street. Durant v. Palmer, 29 Id. 548; Quimby v. Filter, 62 Id. 769. The verdict is not against the weight of the evidence. The rule to show cause is discharged.

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

Per Curiam.

This suit was brought to recover damages under the Death act.

The trial resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff for $15,000. The defendant obtained a rule to show cause and writes down ten .reasons for a new trial.

The plaintiff’s intestate was driving a motor truck along Main street in Roekaway in a westerly direction, about 6:10 a. m. in the morning of August 8th, 1922. He ran into and struck a pole used by the defendant company for the support of its feed wires. Two or three minutes of six, i. e., before the accident, the pole had broken and fallen, so that its top part lay across the feed wires used by the defendant, the bottom or base of the pole resting on the sidewalk. The top part of the truck collided with the pole,' resulting in the death of the plaintiff’s intestate. 1

We have examined the reasons filed for a new trial and find no sufficient ground' for disturbing the verdict of the PUL

[526]*526The damages are not excessive. Rhodehouse v. Director General, 95 N. J. L. 355. There is no error in the charge. The traveling public have a right to suppose that there is no dangerous impediment or pitfall in any part of the street. Durant v. Palmer, 29 Id. 548; Quimby v. Filter, 62 Id. 769. The verdict is not against the weight of the evidence. The rule to show cause is discharged.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 A. 819, 1 N.J. Misc. 525, 49 A.L.R. 992, 1923 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 55, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/symes-v-morris-county-traction-co-nj-1923.