Rafferty v. Pub. Serv. Inter State Transp Co.
| Decision Date | 04 December 1934 |
| Parties | RAFFERTY v. PUBLIC SERVICE INTER STATE TRANSP CO. et al. CURRAN v. SAME. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Separate actions by James S. Rafferty, administrator ad pros, of the estate of Henry L Wilson, deceased, and by James J. Curran, administrator ad pros. of the estate of Frederick G. Fleming, deceased, against the Public Service Interstate Transportation Company and another, were tried together. Verdict for plaintiff in each case. On defendants' rule to show cause why the verdicts should not be set aside.
Rule absolute.
John J. Rafferty and Philip Blacher, both of New Brunswick, for plaintiffs.
Henry H. Fryling, of Newark, for defendant.
CLEARY, Commissioner.
This is the defendants' rule to show cause why two verdicts rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants should not be set aside on the grounds that the verdicts returned by the jury are illegal.
The cases were tried at the Middlesex circuit, and involved the deaths of two people. The suits were started separately, but, for convenience and upon consent of all the parties, the cases were tried together. In each case, there were two defendants, one the master and the other the servant. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in each case and assessed the damages in one case at $20,000 against the master, the Public Service Interstate Transportation Company, and $1,000 against the defendant driver, Arthur Thompson Shipley. In the other case the verdict was $12,000 against the defendant the Public Service Interstate Transportation Company, and $1,000 against the defendant driver, Arthur Thompson Shipley.
These verdicts are both attacked on the grounds above stated, and the court is asked to set the verdicts aside. The contention of the plaintiff in each case is that, although it is admitted that the verdicts, as far as the apportionment of damages is concerned, are illegal, as far as the question of liability is concerned, the verdicts should stand, and that the rule, if allowed, should be limited to damages only.
In support of this contention, many cases are cited showing that the trial court, on a rule, may limit the new trial to damages only. With this contention, there can be no quarrel as an academic question. The difficulty is in the application of it to a given set of facts. If, in any given case, the damages returned are attacked on the ground of either inadequacy, or excessiveness, the usual question involved is one of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Geist v. Moore
... ... 9; Davis v. North ... Coast Transp. Co., 160 Wash. 576, 295 P. 921.) ... correlated provisions of the laws of the State of Idaho for ... costs on said appeal; now, ... Co. , 337 Mo. 270, 85 S.W.2d 80; Rafferty v. Public ... Service Interstate Transp. Co. , ... ...
-
Gilday v. Hauchwit
...namely to apportion the damages between the two joint wrongdoers.' To somewhat the same effect was Rafferty v. Public Serv. Interstate Transp. Co., 13 N.J.Misc. 80, 177 A. 357 (Sup.Ct.1934) , in which a new trial was ordered because the jury had rendered verdicts in different amounts agains......
-
Koltz v. Jahaaske
...18 A. 590, 5 L.R.A. 756, 17 Am.St.Rep. 542;Fidelity Storage Co. v. Kingsbury, 65 App.D.C. 69, 79 F.2d 705;Rafferty v. Public Service Interstate Transp. Co., 177 A. 357, 13 N.J.Misc. 80. There is no line of separation between the liability of joint tort]feasors. Each is liable for the whole,......
-
Gilbert v. Boothe
...of the case. In such a situation a new trial should not be limited solely to the question of damages. Rafferty v. Public Service Interstate Transp. Co., 177 A. 357, 13 N.J.Misc. 80. I am further constrained to hold that the question of liability on the part of the several defendants is so i......