Augustine v. Haas, 41.
| Decision Date | 16 September 1938 |
| Docket Number | No. 41.,41. |
| Citation | 121 N.J.L. 58,1 A.2d 387 |
| Parties | AUGUSTINE v. HAAS. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
In an action for injuries the question whether the injured party was an invitee or a licensee is one for the jury, unless from the facts only one inference can be drawn, in which case the question is for the court.
Appeal from Supreme Court.
Action by Loretta E. Augustine, administratrix ad prosequendum of the estate of Leo C. Augustine, Jr., against Christian F. Haas, Jr., to recover for the death of Leo C. Augustine, Jr., who received fatal injuries while riding in an automobile owned and operated by the defendant. From a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
Samuel P. Orlando, of Camden, for appellant.
Vincent L. Gallaher, of Camden, for respondent.
This is an appeal of the defendant's from a judgment of the Supreme Court, which affirmed a judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff on a jury's verdict in the Camden County Court of Common Pleas.
It is alleged that on the night of October 20, 1935, the plaintiff's intestate, Leo C. Augustine, Jr., together with one Jean Edwards and the defendant, Christian F. Haas, Jr., were riding in an automobile owned and operated by the defendant. As the car was turning from what is known as the Chatsworth Road into the Hammondton-New Gretna Road, in Burlington County, it skidded and collided with a tree, and as a result, the decedent, Augustine, received injuries which caused his death.
The sole ground upon which the appellant seeks a reversal of the judgment below is that the trial judge erred in submitting to the jury the question of whether the decedent was defendant's invitee or a licensee. The defendant argues, in substance, that the plaintiff failed to prove the decedent entered the car as an invitee, and that the proof clearly indicates the decedent was a licensee, and that being so, the defendant breached no duty which he assumed after he permitted the decedent to ride in his car.
There was evidence to show that all of the parties occupying the car at the time of the accident had been attending an outing of the Rod and Gun Club, at Chatsworth, and that about seven o'clock in the evening one Caroline L. Gallagher, who was also present at the affair, approached the defendant and inquired if he would permit the decedent, who was not present at the time, to ride in his car as he had no other means of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sotak v. Pennsylvania R. Co.
...require, as was done, the submission to the jury of the question of whether Jelinek was a licensee or an invitee. Augustine v. Haas, 121 N.J.L. 58, 1 A.2d 387 (E. & A.1938); Rottinger v. Friedhof, 136 N.J.L. 422, 56 A.2d 571 (Sup.Ct.1948), affirmed 1 N.J. 206, 62 A.2d 683 The jury evidently......
-
Knox v. Goodman, A--170
...Such an issue is properly for a jury when the facts or inferences to be drawn from the facts are in dispute. Augustine v. Haas, 121 N.J.L. 58, 1 A.2d 387 (E. & A. 1938); Hudson v. Gas Consumers Ass'n, 123 N.J.L. 252, 8 A.2d 337 (E. & A. 1939). When, however, neither the facts nor inferences......
-
Perlmuter Printing Co. v. Strome, Inc.
...business, is justified in presuming that such agent was authorized to perform the particular act in question. Augustine v. Haas, 121 N.J.L. 58, 64, 1 A.2d 387 (1938). Richard Perlmuter was first exposed to defendant Strome, Inc. through his prior dealing with its house counsel, Peter Vogel.......
- Fleming v. Moving Picture Mach.