Case Name: EDITH NESLER, PLAINTIFF, v. SIMON COHEN AND ALEXANDER COHEN, DEFENDANTS; GEORGE NESLER, PLAINTIFF, v. SIMON COHEN AND ALEXANDER COHEN, DEFENDANTS
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1931-04-09
Citations: 9 N.J. Misc. 432
Docket Number: 
Parties: EDITH NESLER, PLAINTIFF, v. SIMON COHEN AND ALEXANDER COHEN, DEFENDANTS. GEORGE NESLER, PLAINTIFF, v. SIMON COHEN AND ALEXANDER COHEN, DEFENDANTS.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 9
Pages: 432–432

Head Matter:
EDITH NESLER, PLAINTIFF, v. SIMON COHEN AND ALEXANDER COHEN, DEFENDANTS. GEORGE NESLER, PLAINTIFF, v. SIMON COHEN AND ALEXANDER COHEN, DEFENDANTS.
Submitted February 2, 1931
Decided April 9, 1931.
Before Justices Parker, Campbell and Bodine.
Eor the plaintiffs, Augustus S. Dreier.
Eor the defendants, Connolly ■& Hueston.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants in actions arising out of a cross-road automobile accident. The car in which the plaintiffs were driving was proceeding in a northerly direction on a paved street. The defendants' ear was approaching on the left from a little used dirt cross-road. A number of disinterested witnesses, who were in a position to observe the occurrence, testified that the plaintiffs were driving at about ten miles an hour and were on the right of the paved highway. The defendants' car, approaching from the left, turned into the main highway and struck the plaintiffs' car on the left side and drove it into the curb. There was also testimony that the driver of the defendants' car was busily engaged in watching an airplane. The place where the plaintiffs' car was struck and the position of the cars on the highway is indicative that the driver of the defendants' car was not exercising due care.
The jury must have misconceived the testimony adduced.
The rule in both cases will be made absolute.