Van Saders v. Curcio

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Van Saders v. Curcio

2 N.J. Misc. 434, 1924 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 151

DecidedMay 28, 1924

StatusPublished

This text of 2 N.J. Misc. 434 (Van Saders v. Curcio) 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

Van Saders v. Curcio, 2 N.J. Misc. 434, 1924 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 151 (N.J. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

.Per Curiam.

The plaintiff sued to recover damages sustained by his automobile through a collision between that vehicle and the defendant's jitney bus on Bergenline avenue, in the town of West Xow York. The trial resulted in a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.

Tiie only grounds upon which we are asked to make this rule absolute are — first, that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence on the question of liability, and second, that it is contrary to the charge of the court. Our examination of the proofs sent up with the rule satisfies us that neither of these contentions has merit. Wc think that the testimony fully justified the jury in concluding that the collision occurred through the. carelessness of the defendant, and there is nothing in the case which justifies the assertion that the verdict was contrary to the charge of the court.

The rule to show cause will he discharged.

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

.Per Curiam.

The plaintiff sued to recover damages sustained by his automobile through a collision between that vehicle and the defendant's jitney bus on Bergenline avenue, in the town of West Xow York. The trial resulted in a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.

Tiie only grounds upon which we are asked to make this rule absolute are — first, that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence on the question of liability, and second, that it is contrary to the charge of the court. Our examination of the proofs sent up with the rule satisfies us that neither of these contentions has merit. Wc think that the testimony fully justified the jury in concluding that the collision occurred through the. carelessness of the defendant, and there is nothing in the case which justifies the assertion that the verdict was contrary to the charge of the court.

The rule to show cause will he discharged.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 N.J. Misc. 434, 1924 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 151, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/van-saders-v-curcio-nj-1924.