Decided: September 21, 1964.
ABRAHAM EPSTEIN, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
GRAND UNION COMPANY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
On appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court, Appellate Division where the following opinion was filed: "Plaintiff sued for damages sustained when he walked through a glass panel in defendant's supermarket. The jury returned a verdict of $20,000 in favor of plaintiff. Defendant moved for a new trial as to all issues on the grounds that the verdict was 'contrary to the weight of the evidence' and 'excessive.' The judge denied the motion for a new trial, but reduced the verdict to $10,000, which plaintiff agreed to accept. Defendant appeals. "Defendant's sole contention in this appeal is that it is entitled to a new trial as to all issues. It does not ask for a further reduction of the verdict or for a new trial as to damages only. Its argument is that the $20,000 verdict was so excessive as to establish beyond a doubt that the jurors were possessed by prejudice, partiality or passion; that it is hardly likely that a jury so moved could have decided the issue of liability fairly; and, therefore, the entire verdict is tainted and justice requires a new trial as to all issues. See Rommell v. United States Steel Corp., 66 N.J. Super. 30 (App. Div. 1961), certif. denied
For affirmance -- Chief Justice Weintraub, and Justices Jacobs, Francis, Proctor, Schettino and Haneman. For reversal and remandment for new trial as to damages only -- Justice Hall.
[43 NJ Page 254]
The judgment is affirmed for the reasons expressed in the opinion of the Appellate Division.