Goglia v. Janssen Dairy Co.
| Decision Date | 14 May 1936 |
| Docket Number | No. 32.,32. |
| Parties | GOGLIA et al. v. JANSSEN DAIRY CO. et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
Contradictory statements are admissible solely to impeach the witness and for no other purpose. They are ineffective as direct and affirmative proof of the facts to which they relate.
Appeal from Supreme Court.
Action by Theresa Goglia and another against the Janssen Dairy Company and another. From a judgment for named defendant on directed verdict, plaintiffs appeal.
Affirmed.
William L. Greenbaum, of Newark (Irving I. Prager, of Newark, of counsel), for appellants.
Colie & Colie, of Newark (Runyon Colie, of Newark, of counsel), for appellee Janssen Dairy Co.
This was an automobile accident case. No answer was filed by the defendant Otto Herr, and the case proceeded as against the defendant Janssen Dairy Company alone. The sole question before the trial court was whether the defendant Janssen Dairy Company had overcome the presumption, which arose from admission of ownership, that defendant's truck was in its possession through a servant acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident.
The defendant called four witnesses. The driver, Herr, testified that on the night of the accident he took the truck from the defendant's garage, drove first to his home, then to the Fourteenth Street Ferry, and put his son on the boat in order that the latter might take a package to Herr's wife, who was in the hospital, and that he was not at that time engaged in any business connected with the defendant.
The foreman of the defendant's garage, from which the truck was taken, testified that the truck was not on any of the defendant's business on that night as did likewise the watchman. The transportation manager testified that the driver, Herr, had no authority under any circumstances to take the truck out and was not employed for that purpose. It further appeared that Herr had no driver's license at the time of the accident. The only other testimony offered was that of an officer who was produced on behalf of the plaintiffs and who said that he noticed empty bottles in the truck.
The main basis for this appeal appears to hinge on an affidavit signed by the driver, Herr, several weeks after the accident, and with which he was confronted on cross-examination. It contained statements seemingly at variance with his direct testimony. The use of this affidavit to contradict the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Provet
...mod. o.g. 51 N.J. 494, 242 A.2d 333 (1968), cert. den. 393 U.S. 971, 89 S.Ct. 408, 21 L.Ed.2d 384 (1968); Goglia v. Janssen Dairy Co., 116 N.J.L. 396, 397, 184 A. 814 (E. & A.1936); State v. Salimone, 19 N.J.Super. 600, 608--609, 89 A.2d 56 (App.Div.1952), certif. den. 10 N.J. 316, 91 A.2d ......
-
Rivera v. Grill
...follows the foregoing rule is not open to question. State v. D'Adame, 84 N.J.L. 386, 86 A. 414 (E. & A.1912); Goglia v. Janssen Dairy Co., 116 N.J.L. 396, 184 A. 814 (E. & A.1936); Moon v. Lewis, 116 N.J.L. 521, 185 A. 12 (E. & A.1936); Rhodehouse v. Director General, 95 N.J.L. 355, 111 A. ......
-
Kulinka v. Flockhart Foundry Co.
...could not be considered as such evidence. Link v. Eastern Aircraft, 136 N.J.L. 540, 57 A.2d 8 (E. & A.1948); Goglia v. Janssen Dairy Co., 116 N.J.L. 396, 184 A. 814 (E. & A.1936); Mucking v. Hubbs, 128 N.J.L. 395, 26 A.2d 286 (E. & A.1942); Rhodehouse v. Director General, 95 N.J.L. 355, 111......
- Evans v. Bd. of Educ. of Gloucester City, 24.