Case ID: nj-misc_9/html/1075-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

WILLIAM D. DALLENBACH, PLAINTIFF, v. FRANK J. HINELINE AND THE CAMDEN LIME COMPANY, DEFENDANTS.
    Submitted May term, 1931
    Decided October 7, 1931.
    Before Justices Campbell, Lloyd and Bodine.
    For the rule, Curry ,& Purnell (Edward T. Curry, of counsel).
    
      Contra, Quinn, Parsons <& Doremus (John J. Quinn, of counsel).
   Per Curiam.

This is defendant’s rule for new trial and the single reason urged for making it absolute is that the damages are excessive. The plaintiff, a young man twenty-three years of age, received through the negligence of the defendant an injury to his left shoulder, lacerations of the hand, a fracture of the left forearm and an injury to his private parts resulting in a permanent stricture of the urethra. He received a verdict of $10,000.

While the verdict is high, we think it is not so clearly excessive that it should be disturbed. The proofs were that he suffered severe pains; that his left arm was seriously impaired in its usefulness and that there was a permanent stricture of the urethra which required a periodical expanding of that organ to permit the passage of the urine; that this was always painful and that even the passage of urine itself was a painful experience. We are not prepared to say that for such injuries, both of which were permanent in their effects, we should either grant a new trial or reduce the-amount as a condition of refusing a new trial.

The rule is discharged.