Case ID: nj-misc_5/html/0119-01.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

CONSTANCE BOTYRIUS AND JOSEPH BOTYRIUS, HER HUSBAND, AND JOSEPH BOTYRIUS, INDIVIDUALLY, PLAINTIFFS, v. PETER SUBACHIS, DEFENDANT. GEORGE KATELUS, Jr., BY NEXT FRIEND, GEORGE KATELUS; ELLA KATELUS AND GEORGE KATELUS, HER HUSBAND, AND GEORGE KATELUS, INDIVIDUALLY, PLAINTIFFS, v. PETER SUBACHIS, DEFENDANT. DOROTHY SMITH, BY NEXT FRIEND, JOHN SMITH, AND JOHN SMITH, HER HUSBAND, AND JOHN SMITH, INDIVIDUALLY, PLAINTIFFS, v. PETER SUBACHIS, DEFENDANT.
    Decided January 18, 1927.
    Negligence — Automobile Collision — Contributory Negligence Not Shown — Verdict Not Against Weight of Evidence and Verdict Not Excessive.
    On application for rule for new trial.
    Before Justices Black and Campbell.
    For the rule, Frank G. Turner.
    
    
      Contra, Isidor Kalisch.
    
   Per Curiam.

These three causes were tried together at Union County Circuit, The actions were for personal injuries and also damages to an automobile resulting from a collision on Richmond avenue, Staten Island, on July 7th, 1925. Each of the plaintiffs obtained verdicts. Application was made to the trial judge for rules to show cause, and such application was denied by him. The application for such rules is now made to this court.

The points urged are:

1. A nonsuit should have been granted because no negligence was established against the defendant and because of the contributory negligence of the plaintiffs.

2. The verdicts are against the weight of the evidence.

3. The verdicts are excessive.

Our examination of the matter satisfies us that the application for the rules should be denied, and it is therefore denied, with costs.