Sodowich v. Heimert
| Decision Date | 05 May 1931 |
| Docket Number | No. 215.,215. |
| Citation | 154 A. 609 |
| Parties | SODOWICH v. HEIMERT. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
Where one suffers injuries to his person and also to his property from the same negligent act of the defendant, two distinct causes of action exist, and a recovery for injury to the property is not a bar to an action for the injury to the person.
Certiorari to District Court of Orange.
Action by Benjamin Sodowich against Henry Heimert, Jr. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings certiorari.
Affirmed.
Argued January term, 1931, before PARKER, CAMPBELL, and BODINE, JJ.
Richard Stockton, of Newark, for prosecutor.
William L. Oreenbaum, of Newark, for respondent.
The writ brings up the record of a damage suit growing out of the fact the respondent, plaintiff below, was struck by prosecutor's automobile while crossing a street. There was a judgment for plaintiff based on injuries to property including damage to clothing, medical expenses, and loss of wages. The state of demand contained a claim for personal injury and pain and suffering, but this was not considered in the present suit and was passed upon in another suit between the same parties, in the same court, tried at the same time, on the same evidence, and resulting in a judgment for $500. In that suit there was no award for property damage.
The first point now made is that the other suit was res judicata and that the court was thus without jurisdiction to determine this action. But the case of Ochs v. Public Service Railway Co., 81 N. J. Law, 661, 80 A. 495, 36 L. R. A. (N. S.) 240, Ann. Cas. 1912D, 255, is to the contrary, and holds that separate actions may be maintained.
The next point is that the present judgment of $220 was not warranted by the proofs. These, however, are not laid before us, and so there is no basis for a determination of this point.
The third point is identical in substance with the first.
The judgment will be affirmed, with costs.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Burrell v. Quaranta
...causes of action irrespective of whether the first claim had been resolved before the second was filed. See Sodowich v. Heimert, 108 N.J.L. 59, 154 A. 609 (Sup.Ct.1931), aff'd o.b., 109 N.J.L. 265, 160 A. 635 (E. & A.1932); Smith v. Fischer Baking Co., 105 N.J.L. 567, 147 A. 455 (E. & A.192......
-
Henderson v. United States Radiator Corporation
...170 N. Y. 40, 62 N. E. 772, 773, 57 L. R. A. 176, 88 Am. St. Rep. 636; Clancey v. McBride, 338 Ill. 35, 169 N. E. 729; Sodowich v. Heimert, 108 N. J. Law, 59, 154 A. 609, affirmed 109 N. J. Law, 265, 160 A. 635; Ochs v. Public Service Ry. Co., 81 N. J. Law, 661, 80 A. 495, 36 L. R. A. (N. S......
-
Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Church
...L.R.A., N.S., 240 (E. & A. 1911); Smith v. Fischer Baking Co., 105 N.J.L. 567, 568, 147 A. 455 (E. & A. 1929); Sodowich v. Heimert, 108 N.J.L. 59, 60, 154 A. 609 (Sup.Ct.1931), affirmed o.b. 109 N.J.L. 265, 160 A. 635 (E. & A. 1932); Smith v. Red Top Taxicab Corp., 111 N.J.L. 439, 441, 168 ......
-
Smith v. Red Top Taxicab Corp.
...not a trespass to goods. And these are clearly not items of damage resulting from a trespass to goods. In the case of Sodowich v. Heimert, 108 N. J. Law, 59, 154 A. 609, affirmed without opinion, 109 N. J. Law, 265,160 A. 635, the demand included damage to clothing, and an examination of th......