CERMAK v. HERTZ CORP.


28 N.J. 568 (1959)

147 A.2d 795

PAUL CERMAK, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. THE HERTZ CORPORATION, ETC., DEFENDANT, AND AETNA METALCRAFT, INC., ETC., AND OLINTO J. DIGEORGE, JOINTLY, ETC., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

The Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Decided January 19, 1959.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Mr. John E. Hughes argued the cause for the appellants (Messrs. Schreiber, Lancaster & Demos, attorneys).

Mr. Philip L. Nadler argued the cause for the respondent (Mr. Pasquale Pipi and Messrs. Gross & Garfield, attorneys; Mr. Isaac Gross and Mr. Victor P. Mullica, on the brief).


PER CURIAM.

The judgment is affirmed for the reasons expressed in the majority opinion of the court below.

HEHER, J. (dissenting).

Negligence in a given case is measured by the supposed conduct of a reasonable man of ordinary prudence under the same or similar circumstances; and so it is a mixed question of law and fact. The court's function is to determine the existence of a duty under the law and to declare the general standard of conduct and whether...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases