Case Name: JOHN BECKER, BY HIS NEXT FRIEND, ROSE BECKER, AND ROSE BECKER, INDIVIDUALLY, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. J. D. LOIZEAUX LUMBER COMPANY, A CORPORATION, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1927-05-21
Citations: 5 N.J. Misc. 582
Docket Number: 
Parties: JOHN BECKER, BY HIS NEXT FRIEND, ROSE BECKER, AND ROSE BECKER, INDIVIDUALLY, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. J. D. LOIZEAUX LUMBER COMPANY, A CORPORATION, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 5
Pages: 582–583

Head Matter:
JOHN BECKER, BY HIS NEXT FRIEND, ROSE BECKER, AND ROSE BECKER, INDIVIDUALLY, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. J. D. LOIZEAUX LUMBER COMPANY, A CORPORATION, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
Submitted January 28, 1927
Decided May 21, 1927.
Before Justices Kalisch, Katzejstbac h and Lloyd.
Por the rule, Robert Newton Crane.
Contra, Thomas Brown.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
These were actions by John Becker, a boy eleven years of age, to recover damages for injuries received when struck by a truck of the defendant, and by his mother to recover the damages sustained by her in consequence of such injuries.
There was a verdict for the plaintiff John Beck in the sum of $250. The record exhibits no verdict in the mother's case.
The reasons in support of the rule are that the verdict was inadequate as to the boy, and that the jury awarded no damages to the mother.
As to the boy's injuries it appears that he was knocked down, rendered unconscious and remained so for two days, with bleeding from the ears and mouth and vomiting spells. He had concussion of the brain with possibly a fracture of the skull. He remained in the hospital for two weeks and subsequently suffered headaches, lameness, affection of the eyesight, sore jaws and inability to eat hard substances; one tooth was broken and there was a scar upon his face. This condition continued from the time of the accident on May 15th, 1925, until the time of the trial, November 5th, 1925.
The damages seem to us so inadequate as to require a retrial of the case of the boy. It is suggested by the defendant that the small verdict was due to the meagreness of the evidence as to negligence. This, if true, would logically require a verdict for the defendant, and but emphasizes that the verdict should be set aside.
The rule on behalf of John Becker will be made absolute.
As to the plaintiff Eose Becker, there being no verdict, a mistrial resulted and the case will be retried.