Polyard v. Terry
| Decision Date | 17 May 1979 |
| Citation | 79 N.J. 547,401 A.2d 532 |
| Parties | George POLYARD, as Administrator ad Prosequendum for the heirs at law of Dorothy Ferreira, Deceased, and General Administrator of the Estate of Dorothy Ferreira, Deceased, and Herbert Ferreira, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. David TERRY and Joyce Heil, Defendants, State of New Jersey, Defendant-Respondent. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
On certification to the Superior Court, Appellate Division, whose opinion is reported at 160 N.J.Super. 497, 390 A.2d 653 (1978).
Harold N. Springstead, Hackensack, for plaintiff-appellant (Aronsohn, Kahn & Springstead, Hackensack and Joseph L. Kramer, Teaneck, attorneys).
Stephen Skillman, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant-respondent (John J. Degnan, Atty. Gen., attorney; Thomas F. Marshall, Deputy Atty. Gen., on the brief).
The judgment is affirmed substantially for the reasons expressed in the opinion of the Appellate Division.
For affirmance: Chief Justice HUGHES and Justices MOUNTAIN, CLIFFORD, SCHREIBER and HANDLER 5.
For reversal: Justice PASHMAN 1.
After a proper charge from the trial judge, the jury concluded that all elements necessary to maintain a claim against the State were proven. Nonetheless, the majority holds that plaintiff is not entitled to recover the damages awarded. In reaching this result, the majority disregards the strictures of prior caselaw and substitutes its judgment for that of the jurors. I cannot accept this abrogation of the jury's function.
The standard governing a motion for involuntary dismissal, R. 4:37-2(b), or judgment N. o. v., R. 4:40-2, was authoritatively enunciated in Dolson v. Anastasia, 55 N.J. 2, 258 A.2d 706 (1969). We there announced the proper test to be:
whether "the evidence, together with the legitimate inferences therefrom, could sustain a judgment in * * * favor" of the party opposing the motion, I. e., if, accepting as true all the evidence which supports the position of the party defending against the motion and according him the benefit of all inferences which can reasonably and legitimately be deduced therefrom, reasonable minds could differ, the motion must be denied. (55 N.J. at 5, 258 A.2d at 707-708)
In applying this limited standard, the court may not consider the "worth, nature or extent" of the evidence presented but must decide only whether the bare "scintilla" necessary to sustain a judgment exists. Id. at 5-6, 258 A.2d 706.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Garrison v. Township of Middletown
...Baruch, 96 N.J.Super. 125, 140, 232 A.2d 661 (App.Div.1967), rev'd on other grounds, 52 N.J. 127, 244 A.2d 109 (1968)), aff'd, 79 N.J. 547, 401 A.2d 532 (1979). The element of proximate cause in the Act, however, is essentially no different than the element of proximate cause within our com......
-
Waterson v. General Motors Corp.
...202, 372 A.2d 378 (Law Div.1977), rev'd on other grounds, 160 N.J.Super. 497, 390 A.2d 653 (App.Div.1978), aff'd o.b., 79 N.J. 547, 401 A.2d 532 (1979); Barry v. Coca Cola Co., 99 N.J.Super. 270, 239 A.2d 273 (Law Prior to Barry v. Coca Cola Co., supra, 99 N.J.Super. 270, 239 A.2d 273 there......
-
State v. Freeman
...testimony to no more than "net opinion." We disagree. In Polyard v. Terry, 160 N.J.Super. 497, 390 A.2d 653 (App.Div.1978) aff'd 79 N.J. 547, 401 A.2d 532 (1979), we reiterated the well-established principle it is "within the special function of a jury to decide if the facts on which the an......
-
Kolitch v. Lindedahl
...202, 216, 372 A.2d 378 (Law Div.1977), rev'd on other grounds, 160 N.J.Super. 497, 390 A.2d 653 (App.Div.1978), aff'd o.b., 79 N.J. 547, 401 A.2d 532 (1979); see also H. Margolis and R. Novack, Tort Claims Against Public Entities 55 (1984) (discussing Williams and Polyard ). Moreover, the b......