Thomas v. Barlow

138 A. 208, 5 N.J. Misc. 764, 1927 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 117
CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey
DecidedJuly 23, 1927
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 138 A. 208 (Thomas v. Barlow) 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
Thomas v. Barlow, 138 A. 208, 5 N.J. Misc. 764, 1927 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 117 (N.J. 1927).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff sued to recover compensation for injuries which he claims to have received while engaged in a game of basketball at Greenpoint, Long Island, in December, 1925. He was a member of the Perth Amboy team. The defendant was a member of the contesting team. The plaintiff’s claim was that during the game the defendant, without any reason, so far as the playing of the game was concerned, deliberately struck him with his fist in the jaw, thereby fracturing the jawbone, and seriously injuring him. The defendant denied that he had done anything of the kind, and insisted that, if he was the cause of the plaintiff’s injury, his act was entirely unintentional, and that he had no knowledge that he .had struck the plaintiff. The trial resulted in a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, the jury awarding him $3,000. Thereupon, a rule to show cause was allowed, to the defendant.

Our examination of the testimony sent up with the rule satisfies us that this verdict was contrary to the great preponderance of the evidence, which clearly indicates that, if the'injury which the plaintiff claimed to have received was [765]*765the result of a blow delivered by the defendant, the blow was entirely accidental and not the result of any preconceived purpose on the part of the defendant.

Eeaching this conclusion, we have found it unnecessary to consider the other grounds advanced by the defendant for making the rule absolute.

The verdict under review will be set aside and a new trial ordered.

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

Related

Lackner v. North
37 Cal. Rptr. 3d 863 (California Court of Appeal, 2006)
Nemarnik v. Los Angeles Kings Hockey Club
127 Cal. Rptr. 2d 10 (California Court of Appeal, 2002)
Knight v. Jewett
834 P.2d 696 (California Supreme Court, 1992)
Crawn v. Campo
608 A.2d 465 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1992)
Kabella v. Bouschelle
672 P.2d 290 (New Mexico Court of Appeals, 1983)
Tavernier v. Maes
242 Cal. App. 2d 532 (California Court of Appeal, 1966)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
138 A. 208, 5 N.J. Misc. 764, 1927 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 117, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-v-barlow-nj-1927.