Legal Opinion

Puorro v. Salerno

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Decided October 17, 1932PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Trenchard, J.

The sole contention of the defendant-appellant is that the plaintiff’s judgment should be reversed because the trial judge denied a motion to nonsuit based upon the ground of contributory negligence.

We think the judge was right.

Of course on defendant’s motion to nonsuit the judge was bound to take as true the plaintiff’s evidence. Andre v. Mertens, 88 N. J. L. 626. That evidence tended to show the following matters of fact:

On Sunday, December 15th, 1929, at ten-fifteen A. m., the plaintiff, Joseph Puorro, about fifty-seven years old, was…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Hempel v. HallCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1920
  2. Courviosier v. BurgerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1923
  3. Rochford v. StankewiczSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1932

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. De Rossett v. MaloneCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1950
  2. Gable v. FieldWashington Supreme Court · 1937
  3. Conroy v. PurcaroSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1964
  4. Ackley ex rel. Ackley v. HannawackerSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1934

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API