Baca v. Pub. Serv. Coordinated Transp.

• Decision Date: 29 January 1942
• Docket Number: No. 5.,5.
• Citation: 24 A.2d 177,128 N.J.L. 8
• Parties: BACA v. PUBLIC SERVICE COORDINATED TRANSPORT.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

24 A.2d 177

128 N.J.L. 8

BACA

v. PUBLIC SERVICE COORDINATED TRANSPORT.

No. 5.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

Jan. 29, 1942.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. Drivers of motor vehicles must exercise reasonable care for the safety of others using the highways.

2. The plaintiff, on a motion for a nonsuit, is entitled to all the reasonable inferences to be drawn from the testimony.

3. The evidence adduced in this case called for a defense.

PARKER and PORTER, Justices, and WELLS, Judge, dissenting.

Appeal from Supreme Court.

Personal injury action by John Baca against Public Service Coordinated Transport, a corporation. From an adverse judgment, plaintiff appeals.

Reversed for new trial.

Hoberman & Hoberman and Sol Hoberman, all of Jersey City, for plaintiff-appellant.

Henry H. Fryling, of Newark, for defendant-respondent.

BODINE, Justice.

The plaintiff, on June 12, 1938, about a quarter of seven in the evening was riding his Harley-Davidson motorcycle in an easterly direction on 23d Street in West New York. Travel on this highway is permitted only in the direction he was driving. The defendant's bus was proceeding north on Park Avenue which crosses 23d Street. When the plaintiff reached the intersection, he observed the bus to his right about 150 feet away. He proceeded to cross the intersection, but was struck by the bus before he accomplished his purpose. He testified at first that no observation was made after the bus was first seen. No warning by horn, or otherwise, was observed.

The plaintiff was not well versed in the English language. On cross examination, he said that he observed the bus all the time it was bearing down on him, but it came too fast for him to apply his brakes. The fact that he admitted, under the questioning of skilled counsel, that he drove the motorcycle into the bus viewed in the light of subsequent questions and answers, seems not to be conclusive, in view of his great ignorance of the necessary words. The jury might have concluded that there was not a definite admission against interest. The jury might also have found, from all the testimony, that the plaintiff made due observation before proceeding across the intersection.

The testimony shows that the plaintiff was driving at about 12 miles an hour. When he made his observation, the bus was about 150 feet away. The jury could have found that its speed must have been such as to indicate a disregard for the safety of others crossing at the intersection. The motorcycle rider was in plain view of the bus driver and the proofs show no effort to stop the bus.

Much point is made of the failure of the motorcyclist to make other observation for his own safety, as he passed over the intersection, but observation cannot be repeatedly made. The driver of every vehicle must observe that which is in front of him. When he enters an intersection observation must...