Robinson v. Ocean Tp.

Decision Date29 November 1939
Docket NumberNo. 60.,60.
Citation9 A.2d 300
PartiesROBINSON et al. v. OCEAN TP.
CourtNew Jersey Supreme Court

Appeal from Supreme Court.

Action by Mabel Robinson and another against the Township of Ocean, a municipal corporation, for injuries resulting when automobile in which plaintiffs were riding struck a concrete gutter erected at a street intersection by the defendant. From an adverse judgment, plaintiffs appeal.

Affirmed.

Quinn & Doremus, of Red Bank (John J. Quinn, of Red Bank, of counsel), for appellants.

Henry H. Patterson, of Asbury Park (Haydn Proctor of Asbury Park, of counsel), for respondent.

RAFFERTY, Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment of nonsuit entered in the Supreme Court, Monmouth County Circuit.

In 1932, respondent municipality, to remedy a drainage condition, constructed a bituminous concrete gutter at the intersection of Lake View Avenue and Colonial Avenue in that municipality. Lake View Avenue runs from east to west and Colonial Avenue runs from north to south. The gutter runs with Colonial Avenue on its westerly side and from either curb of Lake View Avenue. These roadways are of gravel construction with concrete curb and gutter constructed along the sides thereof. A street lamp is erected on the southwest corner of the intersection. The bituminous concrete gutter when constructed appears to have been between 11 and 12 feet wide; to have been concave in design and at its greatest depth was approximately 14 inches from the level of the roadway. The concrete bed of the gutter extended to within 6 1/2 inches of the top of the construction, the remainder thereof to the roadbed proper being of gravel or dirt. A similar gutter exists at another street intersection of the Township and here there are certain traffic warning signals. It is not shown that these signals were erected because of the presence of the gutter. It is shown also by the testimony of appellant, Charles Robinson, that similar gutters exist in other townships of the county. Prior to the construction of this gutter a wooden box culvert had existed in about the same location and upon the wooden culvert falling out of repair the municipality constructed the new gutter.

On October 23, 1935, at about 11:30 P. M., appellant was operating his automobile along Lake View Avenue in an easterly direction and upon approaching the intersection reduced the speed of the automobile to approximately 15 miles per hour. Mr. Robinson observed the presence of the gutter but testified that he was not aware of its depth and that he drove into it, causing a severe impact to the automobile, as a result of which he and his wife, who was a passenger in the car, suffered personal injury. Mr. Robinson testified that although he was an official of the municipality in 1935 and that he lived approximately one mile from the intersection in question, he was not aware of the existence of this concrete gutter. Pie testified that prior to 1930, during certain test runs of the local Fire Department, he had ridden over the intersection at a speed of 60 miles per hour or mere, at which time the roadway was level, but that he had not crossed the intersection more than four times between 1930 and 1935. The last time he had crossed the intersection was between six months to a year prior to the date of the accident. Mr. Robinson testified that the depth cf the gutter was "practically the same" across the intersection. Another witness for pla...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Jenkins v. North Carolina Dept. of Motor Vehicles
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • October 10, 1956
    ...Co., 128 Ky. 627, 108 S.W. 943; Kuelling v. Roderick Lean Mfg. Co., 183 N.Y. 78, 75 N.E. 1098, 2 L.R.A.,N.S., 303; Robinson v. Township of Ocean, 123 N.J.L. 525, 9 A.2d 300. Under our Tort Claims Act, contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff is a complete defense to the claim. C......
  • Standard Acc. Ins. Co. v. Allstate Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division
    • March 1, 1962
    ...if it is correct in result, notwithstanding that the reasoning of the court in support is erroneous. Robinson v. Ocean Twp., 123 N.J.L. 525, 527, 9 A.2d 300 (E. & A. 1939). The Aslaksen Pontiac had been involved in an accident on June 19, 1958 when the son was driving, but the damage was le......
  • Fredericks v. Town of Dover
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • October 10, 1940
    ...and gutter, and that the appellant was the active agent or instrument in the creation of this perilous condition. Robinson v. Ocean Township, 123 N.J.L. 525, 528, 9 A.2d 300; Alias v. Rumson, 115 N.J.L. 593, 596, 181 A. 175, 102 A.L.R. The street improvement in question was erected in 1924,......
  • Jaixen v. Hargreaves, 11.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • October 20, 1941
    ...the jury could find that the valley gutter was a nuisance. Appellant in the argument leans heavily upon the case of Robinson v. Ocean Township, 123 N.J.L. 525, 9 A.2d 300. But in that case, as the opinion plainly states, there was no proof of design or construction of the gutter making it "......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT