Stone v. Dewarns
| Decision Date | 14 October 1929 |
| Docket Number | No. 58.,58. |
| Parties | STONE et al v. DEWARNS. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Action by Jack I. Stone and another against Henry J. Dewarns, by his next friend and guardian ad litem, Henry Dewarns. Verdict of no cause of action for either plaintiff against defendant and no cause of action for defendant on his counterclaim against plaintiff named. On plaintiff Sidney Kulick's rule to show cause. Rule made absolute.
Argued January term, 1929, before GUMMERE, C. J., and PARKER and BODINE, JJ.
Aaron L. Simon, of Passaic, for plaintiffs.
George E. Cutley, of Jersey City, for defendant.
This case arises out of a collision between two automobiles on the Hudson County boulevard. The plaintiff Stone, with plaintiff Kulick as a passenger, was going south; and the defendant, who was headed north, proceeded to turn to the west to his own left into a street called Traphagen street, which turn would take him across the front of the Stone car. Each driver undertook to cast the blame upon the other, but the fact is that the Stone car hit the defendant's car on the right run board. Stone sued for damage to his car and loss of profits from its use, and Kulick sued for personal injuries. The defendant counterclaimed against. Stone for damages to defendant's car. The jury found no cause of action for either plaintiff against the defendant and no cause of action for defendant on his counterclaim. There is no rule to show cause as to Stone.
For the plaintiff Kulick it is argued on this rule that, inasmuch as the jury found against Dewarns' counterclaim, they necessarily found that the defendant was guilty of contributory negligence, leading to the conclusion, and in the support of this testimony was admitted to show, that the defendant agreed to pay for the damage to Stone's car. This argument seems sound, unless we are to take the verdict as meaning that the jury considered neither party to have been negligent. The testimony, however, hardly supports any such theory of the case, and in our judgment the rule as to Kulick should be made absolute. The case is not unlike Hoffman v. Smith and Apgar, 143 A. 923, 6 N. J. Misc. R. 1090; and the legal situation of the plaintiff is similar to that discussed in Lange v. New York, Susquehanna & Western R. R. Co., 89 N. J. Law, 604, 99 A. 346.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Murphy v. Terzako, A--247
...to avoid striking the car.' Murphy relies upon Hoffman v. Smith, 143 A. 923, 6 N.J.Misc. 1090 (Sup.Ct.1928) and Stone v. Dewarns, 147 A. 455, 7 N.J.Misc. 871 (Sup.Ct.1929), contending that when an accident of this kind happens one or the other or both of the drivers of the vehicles are fair......
-
Phillips v. Scrimente
...obtained. Mr. Schnitzer suggests that this was the cause of the ensuing debacle which swept away plaintiffs' case. Stone v. Dewarns, 7 N.J.Misc. 871, 147 A. 455 (Sup.Ct.1929); Hoffman v. Smith, 6 N.J.Misc. 1090, 143 A. 923 (Sup.Ct.1928). Cf. Murphy v. Terzako, 14 N.J.Super. 254, 82 A.2d 1 M......
- Smith v. Fischer Baking Co.
-
Leland v. Henderson
...could reasonably infer that there was any contributory negligence upon the part of the three invitees. The facts in Stone et al. v. Dewarns, 147 A. 455, 7 N.J.Misc. 871, are very similar to the instant case. There the suit arose out of a collision between two automobiles. The plaintiff, Sto......