Ross v. Pa. R. Co.

• Citation: 138 A. 383
• Decision Date: 04 August 1927
• Docket Number: Nos. 41-43.,s. 41-43.
• Parties: ROSS v. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. et al. (three cases).
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

138 A. 383

ROSS

v. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. et al. (three cases).

Nos. 41-43.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Aug. 4, 1927.

Actions by Thomas Ross, an infant, by his next friend, by Daniel Ross, administrator ad pros. of Robert Ross, deceased, and by Daniel Ross, administrator ad pros. of Thomas Ross, deceased, against the Pennsylvania Railroad Company and another. Verdicts for plaintiffs. On defendant's rule to show cause why the verdicts should not be set aside. Rules discharged.

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 rules.

Richard J. Mackey, of Jersey City, opposed.

PER CURIAM. These three cases were tried together. The first was brought by Thomas Ross, an infant, to recover compensation for injuries received by him in a collision between an automobile in which he was riding, and which was being driven by his father, and a train of the Pennsylvania Railroad Company, at a railroad crossing in Milmay, N. J. The second suit was brought by the administrator ad pros. of Robert Ross, deceased, for the pecuniary loss sustained by the boy, Thomas, through the death of his brother Robert, who was three years old, which resulted from the same accident. The third was brought by the administrator ad pros. of Thomas Ross to recover the pecuniary loss sustained by the boy, Thomas, the son of the decedent, arising out of the death of the latter, which death also occurred in the same accident. The trial of the cases resulted in a verdict in favor of the boy, Thomas, as compensation for the injuries received by him, of $20,000; in a verdict in favor of the administrator of Thomas Ross, Sr., for the sum of $12,000, as compensation for the pecuniary loss sustained by the boy, Thomas, as his sole next of kin; and in a further verdict in favor of the administrator of Robert Ross for the sum of 6 cents as compensation for the pecuniary loss sustained by Thomas through the death of his small brother.

The first contention is that these verdicts, of $20,000 in favor of the boy for the injury sustained by him and $12,000 in favor of the administrator for the pecuniary loss sustained by the boy through the death of his father, are excessive. Our examination of the testimony showing the seriousness and permanence of the injury sustained by the boy leads us to the conclusion that the verdict in his favor is not so clearly excessive as to justify us in setting it aside....