Thompson v. Linde & Griffith Co.

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Thompson v. Linde & Griffith Co.

142 A. 925, 6 N.J. Misc. 727, 1928 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 142

DecidedJuly 7, 1928

StatusPublished

This text of 142 A. 925 (Thompson v. Linde & Griffith 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

Thompson v. Linde & Griffith Co., 142 A. 925, 6 N.J. Misc. 727, 1928 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 142 (N.J. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The defendant has a rule for new trial and presents, as reasons for making the rule absolute, that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence on liability, and that it is excessive in amount.

We think the jury’s finding that the defendant was responsible for plaintiff’s injuries was justified by the proofs, but that the damages awarded ($45,000) are excessive. If the plaintiff will consent to a reduction of the verdict to $25,-000, 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

Per Curiam.

The defendant has a rule for new trial and presents, as reasons for making the rule absolute, that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence on liability, and that it is excessive in amount.

We think the jury’s finding that the defendant was responsible for plaintiff’s injuries was justified by the proofs, but that the damages awarded ($45,000) are excessive. If the plaintiff will consent to a reduction of the verdict to $25,-000, the rule will be discharged, otherwise it will be made absolute.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

142 A. 925, 6 N.J. Misc. 727, 1928 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 142, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-v-linde-griffith-co-nj-1928.