Allison v. Bannno
| Decision Date | 29 January 1942 |
| Docket Number | No. 28.,28. |
| Citation | 128 N.J.L. 161,24 A.2d 363 |
| Parties | ALLISON v. BANNNO et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Appeal from Supreme Court.
Action for personal injuries and property damage by George W. Allison against Patrick J. Bannon and another. From a judgment for defendants entered on a jury verdict of no cause of action, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Milton T. Lasher, of Hackensack for plaintiff-appellant.
Winne & Banta, of Hackensack (John A. Christie, of Hackensack, of counsel), for defendants-respondents.
This is an appeal from a judgment for the defendants entered in the New Jersey Supreme Court on a jury verdict of no cause for action in the Supreme Court Bergen Circuit.
The gravamen of the action was the negligent operation of a motor truck owned by the defendant, Spratt's Patent, Ltd, and driven by its servant and agent, the defendant, Patrick J. Bannon. One of the defenses raised by the defendants was contributory negligence.
The first six grounds of appeal are based on the refusal of the trial judge to permit certain testimony of Anna M. Vohl, called by the plaintiff as a witness in rebuttal of testimony previously given by the defense witnesses, Bannon and Johnson.
The next five grounds of appeal are based on the action of the trial court in striking out five interrogatories prepared by the plaintiff.
The plaintiff's proof tended to show that on November 27, 1939, plaintiff was driving his automobile in a northerly direction along Hackensack Avenue in the City of Hackensack, New Jersey. It was about noon, on a clear day, and as he came near the intersection of Temple Avenue the defendant's truck, also traveling in a northerly direction, came alongside the plaintiff from the rear, on the right, struck his right front wheel so that plaintiff lost control of the car, with the result that the plaintiff's car was seriously damaged by collision with a telegraph pole at the northwest corner of the intersection whereby, in addition to the property damage, the plaintiff suffered severe personal injuries.
The defendants' proof tended to establish that Bannon, the operator of the truck, intending to turn out of Hackensack Avenue and into Temple Avenue toward the left, drove his vehicle toward the center of the highway, slowed down, and that the plaintiff's car coming from behind, passed him on the left or westerly side and thereafter collided with the pole.
The argument is made under two headings: First, that the rulings of the trial court sustaining objections to the questions asked of the witness, Anna M. Vohl, and, second, striking out of the five interrogatories, amounted to legal error. It is not necessary to set out the questions in detail. It is enough to say that each of the questions addressed to Mrs. Vohl to rebut testimony of the witness, Bannon was not of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Cook
...narrowing judicial decisions. See Wolters v. Fidelity Trust Co., 65 N.J.L. 130, 132, 46 A. 627 (Sup.Ct.1900); Allison v. Bannon, 128 N.J.L. 161, 163, 24 A.2d 363 (E. & A. 1942). These remained the law of our State until our judicial structure was revised and implemented with rules embodying......
-
Brooke v. United States
...out at any time? "A. No, sir, he didn't." 30 See, e. g., Cornes v. United States, 119 F.2d 127, 130 (9th Cir.1941); Allison v. Bannon, 128 N.J.L. 161, 24 A.2d 363 (1942). 31 In this category would fall Hampton's testimony that Pettas and appellant never conversed, and that the capsules in w......
-
State v. De Rocco
...A. 8, 9 (E. & A.1923); State v. Dolbow, 117 N.J.L. 560, 563, 189 A. 915, 109 A.L.R. 1488 (E. & A.1937); cf. Allison v. Bannon, 128 N.J.L. 161, 162--163, 24 A.2d 363 (E. & A.1942). And see R.R. 1:5--1 which provides that in criminal causes error in the admission or rejection of testimony or ......
-
Wash. Shopping Ctr., Inc. v. Wash. Twp.
...that which challenges or contradicts the testimony produced for the defense, which is new matter. It should meet new facts." Allison v. Bannon, 128 N.J.L. 161 (E & A 1942). Here, WCSI argues that it should have been permitted to introduce rebuttal testimony from Washington Township's propos......