de Fronzo v. Pub. Serv. Coordinated Transp.

• Decision Date: 31 January 1936
• Docket Number: No. 25.,25.
• Citation: 182 A. 640
• Parties: DE FRONZO et al. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COORDINATED TRANSPORT et al.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

182 A. 640

DE FRONZO et al.

v. PUBLIC SERVICE COORDINATED TRANSPORT et al.

No. 25.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

Jan. 31, 1936.

Evidence justified finding that day was rainy and foggy; that approach by which vehicles came to point of contact was down grade of hill; that bus was drawing slowly to stop to discharge passengers; that truck driver made timely and diligent application of brakes, but that, notwithstanding, truck moved slowly on down grade along wet pavement into slight contact with bus; that plaintiffs' claims included physical infirmities which were not caused by accident; there was not persuasive proof of defective brakes.

Syllabus by the Court.

Assuming that the discharge of a rule to show cause why a new trial should not be granted for the assigned reason that the verdict of the jury is contrary to the weight of the evidence is reviewable on appeal on the ground of abuse of discretion, the facts of the case examined; held, there was no abuse of discretion in the discharge of the rule.

HEHER, Justice, dissenting.

Appeal from Supreme Court.

Suit by Caroline De Fronzo and husband against the Public Service Coordinated Transport, a corporation, and others. Verdict of no cause of action, and, from a judgment discharging a rule to show cause why new trial should not be granted, plaintiffs appeal.

Affirmed.

Hodes & Hodes and Elias G. Willman, all of Newark, for appellants.

Henry H. Fryling, William H. Speer, and James O. Boyd, all of Newark, for respondents Public Service Coordinated Transport and Cyril Keegan.

Burtis S. Horner, of Newark, for respondent Patsy Ragonese.

CASE, Justice.

Mrs. De Fronzo was a passenger upon a Public Service Coordinated Transport bus, between which and the Ragonese truck there was a collision resulting, as alleged, in injuries to the passenger. De Fronzo (her husband joining for incidental damages) sued both the utility (with its driver) and Ragonese, met with a jury verdict in the Essex circuit of no cause of action, and obtained a rule to show cause why a new trial should not be granted on the ground that the verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence. After argument the rule was discharged. The De Fronzos now appeal, setting up that the judge abused his discretion in discharging the rule. Appellants rely upon Hoffman v. Smith, 143 A. 923, 6 N.J.Misc. 1090, for the proposition that when an accident of this kind happens one or the other or both of the drivers of the vehicles are fairly to be charged with negligence, and that a verdict in favor of both of them at the hands of the jury can reasonably be accounted for on no other theory than that the jury were unable to make up their minds as to which of the two defendants was responsible and compromised by finding the plaintiff entitled to recover as against neither, and upon Martin v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Co., 114 N.J.Law, 243, 246, 176...