Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Skiba v. Hmieleski

Decided: May 19, 1930.

CHARLES SKIBA, INFANT, BY JOHN SKIBA AND MARY SKIBA, HIS NEXT FRIENDS, AND JOHN SKIBA, MARY SKIBA AND ANNA SKIBA, INDIVIDUALLY, RESPONDENTS,
v.
EDWARD HMIELESKI AND LILLIAN HMIELESKI, APPELLANTS; HELEN PUHA, INFANT, BY MIKE CHEREPAHAN, HER NEXT FRIEND, AND MIKE CHEREPAHAN, I ALLY, RESPONDENTS, V. EDWARD HMIELESKI AND LILLIAN HMIELESKI, APPELLANTS



On appeal from the Middlesex County Circuit Court.

For the appellants, Carey & Lane.

For the respondents, Elmer E. Brown.

PER CURIAM.

The above suits were instituted in the Middlesex Circuit Court against defendants-appellants. They were to recover damages alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiffs (occupants of the Skiba car) as a result of a collision between

an automobile owned by the plaintiff John Skiba, and operated by his agent or servant, Charles Skiba, one of the plaintiffs, with a Mack automobile truck owned by the defendants and operated by their agent or servant, John Bonien. The cases were tried together.

After rules to show cause, and in which several of the verdicts were reduced, judgment was entered for the plaintiffs.

There was evidence to go to the jury which justified the verdicts, and a jury question was thus raised.

Harry Romeo, a witness for plaintiff, testified that he was in a parked car at the time and place of the accident, and saw the Skiba car coming down the road towards the front of his car; he also noted the defendant's truck approaching from his rear to the point of the accident; he saw the Skiba car seventy feet away and the truck was about twenty feet behind him, when the truck swerved out to the left-hand side of the road to pass his car and struck the Skiba car when it was three feet on the dirt shoulder of the right-hand side of the road; it was a large truck with a trailer, with a load of sugar, had a big wide body; the truck did not pull out and stay close to his, Romeo's car, and before it came to a stop was away on the other side of the road, and the Skiba car came in contact with it; the truck pulled over the road too far and caused the accident; there was plenty of room for the truck if it had stayed on the road.

There were other witnesses for the plaintiff, who gave evidence making for that side. And this justified the refusal of the nonsuit.

Nor did the court err in denying the defendant's motion for a direction of a verdict. The defendant's witnesses placed the truck on the left-hand side of the road and on a slant across the highway and the trailer sideways; which was improper.

In Maudsley v. Richardson & Boynton Co., 101 N.J.L. 561, this court held: "In passing upon a motion to nonsuit, the court cannot weigh the evidence, but must take as true all testimony which supports the view of the party against whom ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.