Court Opinion

ID: 9752938
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 18:46:29.703202+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:26.007761
License: Public Domain

Jacobs, J.
(dissenting). The Appellate Division reviewed the evidence and found that it was sufficient to withstand the motion for dismissal at the close of the plaintiff’s case. See Melicharek v. Hill Bus Company, 70 N. J. Super. 150, 152 (1961). The immediate effect of its decision was to call upon the Bus Company to produce its defensive evidence including its records and testimony bearing on the location of the stone-throwing incidents testified to by the plaintiff’s witnesses, the extent of any prior notice thereof, and the nature of any precautions taken to safeguard passengers. After completion of the evidence and renewal of the motion for dismissal, the trial judge would be in a truly just position to say whether there was an issue of negligence for the jury and, if there was, to submit all of the evidence to the jury for its factual determination under appropriate legal instructions. The per curiam rejects this course and now bars further assertion of the plaintiff’s claim for redress from his carrier. It seems to me that this unwisely disposes of the matter in the dark though further light is readily available.
I would affirm the judgment of the Appellate Division and remand the matter for full trial in the Law Division.
For reversal—Chief Justice Weinteatjb, and Justices Peancis, Pkoctoe, Hall, Schettiito and Haneman—6.
For affirmance—Justice Jacobs—1.