Case Name: MAX HEINSMANN, ADMINISTRATRIX AD PROSEQUENDUM OF JOHN HEINSMANN, DECEASED, PLAINTIFF, v. HARRY (OR HENRY) KUMPF, DEFENDANT
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1930-05-06
Citations: 8 N.J. Misc. 372
Docket Number: 
Parties: MAX HEINSMANN, ADMINISTRATRIX AD PROSEQUENDUM OF JOHN HEINSMANN, DECEASED, PLAINTIFF, v. HARRY (OR HENRY) KUMPF, DEFENDANT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 8
Pages: 372–373

Head Matter:
MAX HEINSMANN, ADMINISTRATRIX AD PROSEQUENDUM OF JOHN HEINSMANN, DECEASED, PLAINTIFF, v. HARRY (OR HENRY) KUMPF, DEFENDANT.
Submitted October term, 1929
Decided May 6, 1930.
Before Gummere, Chief Justice, and Justices Kalisch and Campbell.
Eor the rule, Robert Peacock.
Contra, C. Richard Allen.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Plaintiff has a verdict of $15,000 for damages for the death of her intestate resulting as is said from injuries to him caused by the negligent operation of defendant's motor car.
This verdict we are asked to set aside because it is against the weight of evidence upon the question of negligence of the defendant and the contributory negligence of decedent; because a certificate of death of decedent was erroneously admitted; because in several particulars the court erroneously instructed the jury and because the verdict is excessive.
Our examination brings us to the conclusion that the verdict is so decidedly against the weight of evidence upon the question of negligence of the defendant as to compel the setting aside of the verdict. The rule to show cause is therefore made absolute.