Toreno v. W. A. Ferguson's Sons

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Toreno v. W. A. Ferguson's Sons

148 A. 925, 8 N.J. Misc. 67, 1930 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 318

DecidedJanuary 14, 1930

StatusPublished

This text of 148 A. 925 (Toreno v. W. A. Ferguson's Sons) 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

Toreno v. W. A. Ferguson's Sons, 148 A. 925, 8 N.J. Misc. 67, 1930 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 318 (N.J. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Cubiam.

The plaintiff brought this action to recover compensation for personal injuries received by him in a collision between a truck, in which he was riding, and which belonged to his employer, Briscow & Company, and another truck belonging to the defendant. The trial resulted in a verdict in his favor, the jury awarding him, as compensation for his injuries, the sum of $2,150.

The defendant now seeks to have this verdict set aside, first, because, as counsel alleges, it is contrary to the clear weight of the evidence on the question of the negligence of the defendant’s driver, as a producing cause of the collision; and second, because the award is excessive. Our examination and consideration of the proofs submitted at the trial leads us to the conclusion that neither one of these contentions is meritorious.

The rule to show cause will be discharged.

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

Pee Cubiam.

The plaintiff brought this action to recover compensation for personal injuries received by him in a collision between a truck, in which he was riding, and which belonged to his employer, Briscow & Company, and another truck belonging to the defendant. The trial resulted in a verdict in his favor, the jury awarding him, as compensation for his injuries, the sum of $2,150.

The defendant now seeks to have this verdict set aside, first, because, as counsel alleges, it is contrary to the clear weight of the evidence on the question of the negligence of the defendant’s driver, as a producing cause of the collision; and second, because the award is excessive. Our examination and consideration of the proofs submitted at the trial leads us to the conclusion that neither one of these contentions is meritorious.

The rule to show cause will be discharged.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

148 A. 925, 8 N.J. Misc. 67, 1930 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 318, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/toreno-v-w-a-fergusons-sons-nj-1930.