# Jorgensen v. Pennsylvania Railroad

> Supreme Court of New Jersey · January 20, 1958 · 25 N.J. 541

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9652596

## Case

- **Full name:** Carl Jorgensen, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. the Pennsylvania Railroad Company, a Corporation, Defendant-Appellant, and John E. Ulich, Defendant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of New Jersey
- **Decided:** January 20, 1958
- **Citations:** 25 N.J. 541; 138 A.2d 24; 72 A.L.R. 2d 1415; 41 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2470; 1958 N.J. LEXIS 282
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Heher
- **Judges:** Proctor, Weintraub, Heher
- **Cited by:** 58 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9652596

## Opinion text

Heher, J.
(dissenting in part). I concur in the reasoning and conclusion of the opinion, save as to the holding that there was sufficient evidence to sustain the submission to the jury of the “question whether there was an unlawful restraint of plaintiff’s liberty.” I find no tangible basis in the evidence for the conclusion that there was “constraint of person,” either by conduct or by words, such as would “induce a reasonable apprehension of force.” There was a discussion of the circumstances attending the transaction, welcomed by the plaintiff as an opportunity for self-defense. There was no arrest and no imprisonment. And there is no suggestion in what was done of an intention to impose confinement; quite the contrary. The course taken cannot reasonably be regarded as a “holding” of the plaintiff “incommunicado” in the sense of constraint of the person.
I would reverse the judgment in toto.
For affirmance in part and reversal in part — Justices Wacheneeld, Burling, Jacobs and Proctor — 1.
For reversal in toto — Justice Heher — 1.
Weintraub, C. J., concurring in result.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9652596. Public record. Not legal advice.