Case Name: ELIZABETH BURCIAR AND STEFAN BURCIAR, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES, v. PUBLIC SERVICE CO-ORDINATED TRANSPORT, A CORPORATION OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1941-12-17
Citations: 127 N.J.L. 424
Docket Number: 
Parties: ELIZABETH BURCIAR AND STEFAN BURCIAR, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES, v. PUBLIC SERVICE CO-ORDINATED TRANSPORT, A CORPORATION OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 127
Pages: 424–425

Head Matter:
ELIZABETH BURCIAR AND STEFAN BURCIAR, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES, v. PUBLIC SERVICE CO-ORDINATED TRANSPORT, A CORPORATION OF NEW JERSEY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Argued October 7, 1941 —
Decided December 17, 1941.
Before Brogan, Chief Justice, and Justices Case and Hehek.
Por the plaintiifs-appellees, George Rothstein (Andrew O. Wiitreich, of counsel).
Por the defendant-appellant, Henry H. Fryling (William H. Speer and Arthur C. Gillette, of counsel).

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The defendant appeals from a judgment recovered by the plaintiff Elizabeth Burciar for personal injuries and by her husband per quod. The grounds of appeal are the trial court's refusal to order a nonsuit and refusal to direct verdict for the defendant. Both motions were advanced by the appellant on the theory that the testimony for the plaintiffs failed to establish that the defendant was guilty of negligence which was the proximate cause of the injury and that the injured plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence.
TJpon examination of the record, we think both motions were properly denied and that the testimony in the case was such that these issues were correctly left for the jury's determination. On each question a fact issue was clearly raised.
The judgments under review are affirmed, with costs.