Walder v. Manahan
| Decision Date | 14 December 1942 |
| Citation | 21 N.J.Misc. 1,29 A.2d 395 |
| Parties | WALDER v. MANAHAN et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Circuit Court |
Action by Edward W. Walder against Dr. David D. Manahan and another to recover damages for the alleged illegal commitment of plaintiff to the New Jersey State Hospital for the Insane. On motion to set aside verdict for plaintiff.
Verdict set aside, and new trial granted as to damages only.
Andrew O. Wittreich, of Asbury Park, for plaintiff.
Durand, Ivins & Carton, and J. Victor Carton, all of Asbury Park, Quinn & Doremus, and John J. Quinn, all of Red Bank, for defendants.
The defendants seek to set aside a verdict of $20,000 awarded by a jury to the plaintiff after a six day trial in the Monmouth Circuit Court at Freehold, on three grounds, the first ground being that the verdict in the form in which it was returned by the jury was illegal. The jury's verdict was rendered as follows:—"We find in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants in the sum of $20,000; $10,000 against each defendant."
The suit was based on a claim by the plaintiff that the two defendants, who are medical doctors, illegally committed the plaintiff on April 22, 1941, to the New Jersey State Hospital for the Insane at Marlboro, N. J.
The complaint contained nine counts. The first three counts, charging the defendants with conspiracy, were not submitted to the jury because the Court directed a verdict in favor of the defendants on these three counts. Of the remaining six counts, three were based on malicious prosecution or malicious abuse of process, and three counts were based on false imprisonment. The fourth and fifth counts charged the defendants individually with malicious prosecution. The sixth count charged the defendants jointly with malicious prosecution. The seventh and eighth counts charged the defendants individually with false imprisonment. The ninth count charged the defendants jointly with false imprisonment.
The evidence disclosed that the plaintiff's wife and daughters concluded in April, 1941, that the plaintiff was mentally ill, and that something should be done about his illness. They proceeded to have the plaintiff committed to an institution in conformity with the provisions of R.S. 30:4-37, N.J.S.A. 30:4-37. The certificates of two physicians, certifying to the insanity of the patient, had to be attached to the application for commitment. The defendants each signed one of these certificates, certifying to the insanity of the plaintiff, and each defendant certified that he had made a personal examination of the plaintiff on April 22, 1941.
The defendants contend that the plaintiff charged them with being joint tort-feasors, and that the attempt by the jury to apportion the damages among joint tort-feasors was illegal and contrary to law. The first point to be determined, therefore, is whether or not the defendants were joint tort-feasors.
The Court instructed the jury in effect that any verdict in favor of the plaintiff did not necessarily have to be returned against both defendants; that the jury should only find against such defendant, if either, whom it conceived had acted without reasonable or probable cause in committing the plaintiff to Marlboro. By finding against both defendants, it is apparent that the jury determined that each defendant had failed in the duty which he owed to the plaintiff. The defendants are, therefore, joint tort-feasors.
If two or more persons owe to another the same duty and by their common neglect of that duty one is injured, the tort is joint and each, any or all of the tort-feasors are liable. If the negligence of the tort-feasors was without concert, but such several neglects, nevertheless, concurred and united together in causing injury, the tort is equally joint, and the tort-feasors are subject to a like liability. Daly v. Singac Auto Supply Co., 103 N.J.L. 416, 135 A. 868; Matthews v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co., 56 N.J.L. 34, 27 A. 919, 22 L.R.A. 261.
The general rule as to the right of a jury to apportion damages among joint tort-feasors is set forth in 64 Corpus Juris 1084 as follows:—
The only New Jersey case in point is Ross v. Pennsylvania R....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gilday v. Hauchwit
...147, 194 A. 611 (E. & A. 1937); Robb v. John C. Hickey, Inc., 19 N.J.Misc. 455, 20 A.2d 707 (Cir.Ct.1941), and Walder v. Manahan, 21 N.J.Misc. 1, 29 A.2d 395 (Cir.Ct.1942). In Trovato a direction in the verdict that the amount of damages awarded be paid at the rate of $14 per week was held ......
-
Ristan v. Frantzen
...481, 78 A.2d 602 (App.Div.1951). Cf. Daly v. Singac Auto Supply Co., 103 N.J.L. 416, 135 A. 868 (E. & A.1927); Walder v. Manahan, 29 A.2d 395, 21 N.J.Misc. 1 (Cir.Ct.1942); 65 C.J.S., Negligence, § 102, p. 644; Restatement of the Law of Torts, sec. 879, p. 446; Stevenson on Negligence Law i......
-
Mcgrath v. Keenan
...a lawful imprisonment, instituted maliciously and without probable cause. Somewhat similar, indeed, is the situation in Walder v. Manahan, 29 A.2d 395, 21 N.J.Misc. 1, where two doctors, who had had plaintiff committed to an insane asylum, but not formally adjudicated as a lunatic, were hel......
-
Atherton v. Crandlemire
...and is to be rejected as irregular and void. The general verdict must stand.” Counsel for defendant cites us to Walder v. Manahan et al., 29 A.2d 395, 396, 21 N.J. Misc. 1, which held a verdict for “$20,000; $10,000 against each defendant” illegal in form. This New Jersey case, reported fro......