Nelson v. Pub. Serv. Transp. Co.

• Decision Date: 05 January 1927
• Docket Number: No. 39.,39.
• Citation: 135 A. 467
• Parties: NELSON et al. v. PUBLIC SERVICE TRANSP. CO. et al.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

135 A. 467

NELSON et al.

v. PUBLIC SERVICE TRANSP. CO. et al.

No. 39.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Jan. 5, 1927.

Action by Mary Nelson and husband against the Public Service Transportation Company and another. Verdict for plaintiffs, and they bring a rule to show cause. Rule discharged.

Argued May term, 1926, before KALISCH and KATZENBACH, JJ.

A. A. Melniker, of Bayonne, for plaintiffs.

Schneider & Schneider, of Newark (Jacob Schneider, of Newark, on the brief), for defendants.

PER CURIAM. This case is before this court upon plaintiffs' rule to show cause. The action was instituted by the plaintiffs to recover damages arising from an injury alleged to have been received by the plaintiff Mary Nelson, when a passenger in a bus of the Public Service Transportation Company. The bus of the transportation company collided with an automobile belonging to one Theodore Gomberg. Mrs. Nelson, after the collision was treated by two physicians. She complained of an injury to her arm. The plaintiffs did not claim that the injury was permanent. No bone was broken. The chief item of damages was based upon the claim that the injury to Mrs. Nelson prevented her from keeping boarders.

The plaintiffs, so far as damages were concerned, relied solely upon their testimony. The two physicians who attended Mrs. Nelson were not called by the plaintiffs as witnesses. The testimony disclosed that Mrs. Nelson had been operated upon prior to the accident for a tumor. She had also given, some years before, premature birth to a child. She had been in another bus accident, shortly before the accident out of which the present litigation arose.

The defendants called two physicians, who testified that they had examined Mrs. Nelson. One of the physicians who testified stated that his examination had been made 11 or 12 days after the accident, and the only objective condition she had was a slight discoloration of the right arm. The other symptoms were subjective. The other physician examined Mrs. Nelson between 6 and 7 months after the accident, and testified that he found nothing to indicate any physical injury or any organic or nervous condition. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Mrs. Nelson for $75 and for Mr. Nelson of $25.

These verdicts are small. We cannot however, say that the amounts of the verdicts are not supported by the testimony. The plaintiffs did not call the physicians who had attended Mrs. Nelson immediately after the accident. The jury had the right to...