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.

Zochowski v. Zukowski

Decided: January 10, 1935.

SIGMUND ZOCHOWSKI, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
MICHAEL ZUKOWSKI, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT



On appeal from the Supreme Court.

For the appellant, Autenrieth & Wortendyke.

For the respondent, Edmond J. Dwyer.

Wells

The opinion of the court was delivered by

WELLS, J. This is an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court entered upon the verdict of a jury at the

Hudson Circuit in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant-appellant, Zukowski, and a co-defendant, Harwood.

This appeal is by the defendant Zukowski; the defendant Harwood has not appealed.

The action was brought to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff through a collision between a Ford truck owned and driven by appellant, Zukowski, and a Chevrolet car owned and operated by the defendant Harwood, at the intersection of Second and Bergen streets, Harrison, New Jersey. At the time of the collision plaintiff was an invitee upon the truck of the appellant.

When plaintiff rested his case, appellant moved the court for a nonsuit upon the ground that the evidence adduced failed to support any reasonable inference that the appellant was guilty of any negligence which was a proximate or concurring cause of the injuries complained of, and upon the further ground that the evidence on the plaintiff's case affirmatively exonerated appellant of any negligence which was a proximate or concurring cause of said injuries. This motion was denied and an exception allowed.

At the conclusion of the defendant's case there was a motion for the direction of a verdict in favor of appellant on the same grounds as urged in the motion for nonsuit. This was also denied.

The sole ground argued for reversal is that there was error in the denial of the motion for a nonsuit.

Of course, on the appeal, we are not concerned with the weight of the evidence. Motions for nonsuit and to direct a verdict for the defendant, for the purpose of the motions, in effect admit the truth of the evidence, and of every inference of fact that can be legitimately drawn therefrom, which is favorable to the plaintiff, but deny its sufficiency in law; and where such evidence or inference of fact will support a verdict for the ...


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.