Wright v. Builders Construction Co.

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Wright v. Builders Construction Co.

1 N.J. Misc. 542, 1923 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 61

DecidedNovember 7, 1923

StatusPublished

This text of 1 N.J. Misc. 542 (Wright v. Builders Construction 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

Wright v. Builders Construction Co., 1 N.J. Misc. 542, 1923 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 61 (N.J. 1923).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This was an accident case growing out of a collision of two automobiles at cross streets or avenues.

The accident occurred on the 27th of December, 1921, at the intersection of Florence avenue and Elmwood avenue, in the town of Irvington. The plaintiffs were driving in a northerly direction along Florence avenue and the defendant’s runabout, driven by one Joseph -Carragher, was proceeding along -Elmwood avenue in a westerly direction. The trial resulted in a verdict for the defendant. The plaintiff obtained a rule to show cause and writes down fifteen reasons for a new trial.

We find no sufficient reason for disturbing the verdict. Cases of collisions on highwaj’s almost invariably involve questions of concurring negligence on the part of both actors. Fox v. Great Atlantic, &c., Co., 84 N. J. L. 728.

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 was an accident case growing out of a collision of two automobiles at cross streets or avenues.

The accident occurred on the 27th of December, 1921, at the intersection of Florence avenue and Elmwood avenue, in the town of Irvington. The plaintiffs were driving in a northerly direction along Florence avenue and the defendant’s runabout, driven by one Joseph -Carragher, was proceeding along -Elmwood avenue in a westerly direction. The trial resulted in a verdict for the defendant. The plaintiff obtained a rule to show cause and writes down fifteen reasons for a new trial.

We find no sufficient reason for disturbing the verdict. Cases of collisions on highwaj’s almost invariably involve questions of concurring negligence on the part of both actors. Fox v. Great Atlantic, &c., Co., 84 N. J. L. 728.

The rule to show cause is discharged.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 N.J. Misc. 542, 1923 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 61, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wright-v-builders-construction-co-nj-1923.