Brunhoelzl v. Brandes
Supreme Court of New Jersey
On appeal. This was an action in tort brought to recover damages for injury to the plaintiff’s automobile, resulting from the unskillful manner in which it was driven by the defendant, who was an infant.
Read the full summary
On appeal. This was an action in tort brought to recover damages for injury to the plaintiff’s automobile, resulting from the unskillful manner in which it was driven by the defendant, who was an infant. The amended state of demand set forth that the plaintiff at the request of the defendant lent to the latter an automobile for use on the evening of June 29th, 1916, and that on that same evening the defendant reported to plaintiff that the automobile had upset and was damaged. There was no testimony by the plaintiff as to the cause of the accident, which by the testimony of the defendant and…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Garrison, J.
The appellant’s motion for judgment should have been granted. The general liability of infants for their torts does not take from them their special immunity from liability for their contracts; each rests upon a policy of the law. When these two policies come into conflict they cancel each other to the extent that they deal with the same subject-matter. If this cancellation be complete, so that all that is claimed as the foundation of the infant’s tort is covered by the breach of his contract, nothing remains upon which to found an action…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Brown v. WoodMichigan Supreme Court · 1940
- Tennyson v. KernSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1956
- Faces, Inc. v. KennedyNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1981
- Jones v. MilnerCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1936
- Powers v. TesterPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas · 1941
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.