Hartpence v. Grouleff

Decision Date31 May 1954
Docket NumberNo. A--127,A--127
Citation105 A.2d 514,15 N.J. 545
PartiesHARTPENCE v. GROULEFF.
CourtNew Jersey Supreme Court

Franklin W. Kielb, Flemington, for appellant.

Anthony M. Hauck, Jr., Clinton, for respondent(Hauck & Herrigel, Clinton, attorneys).

The opinion of the court was delivered by

OLIPHANT, J.

We granted certification on this appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Superior Court which set aside an order of the Hunterdon County Court granting a new trial in an action in negligence.The jury had returned a verdict of no cause of action.

The appellant was an invitee in an automobile owned and operated by the defendant-respondent.He was sitting with others in the rear seat of the car that was being driven in a westerly direction toward Frenchtown, New Jersey.A snow storm had occurred a few days prior to the date of the accident.In the defendant's language the road was 'pretty clear.It had a little ice spot once in a while.'This is reasonably consistent with the testimony of the appellant's witnesses that there were icy spots together with some snow on the road.The testimony varies but all agree that the car was traveling in excess of the established speed limits for this section of the road.The defendant admitted taking some alcoholic beverages some time prior to the accident.The car hit an icy spot and skidded down the road sidewise about two hundred feet and crashed into a tree.The defendant's testimony appears vague and uncertain when he fixed the distance of 60 or 75 feet.This fact of the distance of the skid is of the utmost importance and the trial judge who saw the witnesses and heard their testimony was in a better position to appraise its weight and credibility than the Appellate Division and this court which merely has seen the bare record and an obviously attenuated one.

The appellant's motion for the new trial was made on the ground that the jury's verdict was against the weight of the evidence.The motion was granted and Judge Colie, sitting in the County Court, set forth the reasons which prompted him to grant the new trial, R.R. 4:61--1(d), and stated in conclusion that 'I feel the jury could have arrived at its verdict only as the result of passion, mistake or prejudice', R.R. 4:61--1(a).

The defendant then made a motion before the Appellate Division for leave to appeal, Rule 4:2--2(b), now R.R. 2:2-- 3(4)(b), and such leave was granted apparently on the theory that if a proper ground existed for the reversal of the trial court's order, the litigation would be terminated.

While there might be a difference of opinion among legal minds as to the propriety and reasonableness of the trial court's action, much more is required before such action by a trial court can be reversed.

In its opinion, 28 N.J.Super. 125, 100 A.2d 298, 299(1953), the Appellate Division reviewed a number of decisions dealing with motions for a new trial and the review thereof.It pointed out that appellate courts have held that they will not reverse such action by a trial court unless they find there was 'an abuse of discretion,''a 'clear' abuse of discretion,' or the court'acted unconscientiously,' or 'acted unconscionably,' or there was 'a 'manifest denial of justice." All these words and phrases have the same general meaning and merely point up the rule which underlies such action by an appellate court.It is that the action of the trial court should not be...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
73 cases
  • Kovacs v. Everett
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • October 05, 1955
    ...appellate court. R.R. 4:61--1; Hager v. Weber, 7 N.J. 201, 81 A.2d 155 (1951). But the appellate court's function is even narrower in reviewing the ruling of a trial judge in passing on a motion for a new trial. Hartpence v. Grouleff, 15 N.J. 545, 105 A.2d 514 (1954) is dispositive of the issue. In affirming the action of the trial court on a motion for a new trial, the Supreme Court there 'A trial judge is in a better position than an appellate court to decide whether justicesees and hears the witnesses, observes their demeanor and reactions, none of which has life in the record on appeal. He is in a position to know and equate all the factors, including any error he may have made, and establish a basis which leads to the conclusion that the verdict was the result of passion, mistake or prejudice. His action should not be disturbed unless it clearly and unequivocally appears there was a manifest denial of justice under the law. * * *' (15 N.J. at page 549, 105...
  • Jersey City Redevelopment Agency v. Costello
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • March 13, 1991
    ...See also State v. Silver, 92 N.J. 507, 514-515, 457 A.2d 463 (1983); Township of Wayne v. Kosoff, 73 N.J. 8, 372 A.2d 289 (1977); Dolson v. Anastasia, 55 N.J. 2, 258 A.2d 706 (1969); Hartpence v. Grouleff, 15 N.J. 545, 105 A.2d 514 (1954); State Highway Comm. v. Lincoln, etc., Corp., 110 N.J.L. 190, 164 A. 476 (E. & A. 1933); State v. Azzolina Land Corp., 101 N.J.Super. 103, 108, 243 A.2d 276 (App.Div.1968); Moorestown Tp. v. Slack, 85...
  • Colacurcio Contracting Corp. v. Weiss
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • December 12, 1955
    ...standard and, by hypothesis, therefore, no question arises under the cited provision of the organic law securing the right to trial by jury. It is equally apparent that the same standard, within the scope of appellate review laid down in Hartpence v. Grouleff, supra, governed the determination of the Appellate Division. Appellant says, but the record abundantly refutes the claim, that the standard was not in fact employed in either court. As we view the matter, his real complaint isas requiring that the action of the trial judge in granting or refusing a new trial 'should not be disturbed unless it clearly and unequivocally appears there was a manifest denial of justice under the law,' Hartpence v. Grouleff, 15 N.J. 545, 549, 105 A.2d 514 (1954). It is apparent that the trial judge controlled his determination by application of the standard and, by hypothesis, therefore, no question arises under the cited provision of the organic law securing the right to trial...
  • Wright v. Bernstein
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • January 28, 1957
    ...discretion, cf. Hager v. Weber, 7 N.J. 201, 212, 81 A.2d 155 (1951), and hence harmful error since such action by the court would clearly and unequivocally be a manifest denial of justice under the law. Hartpence v. Grouleff, 15 N.J. 545, 549, 105 A.2d 514 (1954). It is essential to the future operation of the jury system that a juror in the situation in which Shibla found himself should not serve or be allowed to serve on a jury panel, and the mistrial should have been granted...
  • Get Started for Free