Ross v. Pa. R. Co.

• Decision Date: 04 August 1927
• Docket Number: No. 40.,40.
• Citation: 138 A. 383
• Parties: ROSS v. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. et al.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

138 A. 383

ROSS

v. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. et al.

No. 40.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Aug. 4, 1927.

Suit by Daniel Ross, administrator ad pros, of Christina Ross, deceased, against the Pennsylvania Railroad Company and another. Verdict for plaintiff against both defendants. On defendants' rule to show cause why the verdict should not be set aside. Rule made absolute.

See, also, 138 A. 383.

Argued October term, 1926, before GUMMERE, C. J., and MINTURN, J.

Wall, Haight, Carey & Hartpence, of Jersey City, for the rule.

Richard J. Mackey, of Jersey City, opposed.

PER CURIAM. The plaintiff brought suit as administrator ad pros, of Christina Ross, deceased, to recover the pecuniary loss sustained by her son and sole next of kin, who was four years old. Mrs. Ross was killed in the collision of an automobile in which she was riding with a train of the Pennsylvania Railroad Company at a railroad crossing in Milmay, N. J., in November, 1923. The averment of the complaint is that the accident was the result of the joint negligence of the railroad company and its codefendant, Steelman, who was the engineer operating the train. As appears from the postea in the case:

"The jury rendered a general verdict in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants, Pennsylvania Railroad Company and Calvin W. Steelman, and assessed the damages at the circuit to Daniel Ross, administrator, the sum of $16,000 against the Pennsylvania Railroad Company, and to Daniel Ross, administrator, the sum of $16,000, against Calvin W. Steelman."

The defendants contend that this verdict cannot be supported because by it the jury apportioned the damages to which the plaintiff was entitled between the joint wrongdoers, assessing against each of them the sum of $16,000, instead of finding a single verdict against both, as the law required. Counsel for the plaintiff concedes that an attempt by a jury to apportion between joint wrongdoers the damages sustained by the plaintiff, or the person whom he represents, cannot be but he argues that the verdict intended to be rendered and actually rendered by the jury was an award of $16,000 to the plaintiff, and the imposition upon both defendants of the liability to pay this amount. The difficulty with this contention is that the verdict itself does not show any such purpose on the part of the jury. The wording of the verdict indicates an intention to apportion the damages as between the two defendants, making each one of them liable for the...