Battaglia v. Norton, A-7

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
Writing for the CourtHEHER
Citation108 A.2d 1,16 N.J. 171
PartiesBonuventura BATTAGLIA, plaintiff-respondent, v. Henry K. NORTON, Trustee of the New York, Susquehanna and Western Railroad Company, a body corporate, defendant-appellant. Theresa DANN, Administratrix ad prose-quendum of the Estate of Wilfred Dann, deceased, plaintiff-respondent, v. Henry K. NORTON, Trustee of the New York, Susquehanna and Western Railroad Company, defendant-appellant.
Docket NumberNo. A-7,A-7
Decision Date27 September 1954

Raymond W. Troy, Newark, argued the cause for appellant (Vincent P. Biunno, Newark, on the brief; Lum, Fairlie & Foster, Newark, attorneys).

John J. Breslin, Jr., Hackensack, argued the cause for the respondent Battaglia (Breslin & Breslin, Hackensack, attorneys).

Paul J. O'Neill, Newark, argued the cause for the respondent administratrix, Theresa Dann (George W. King, Secaucus, attorney).

The opinion of the court was delivered by


The question here is whether the circumstances attending a railroad grade-crossing collision bespeak contributory negligence as a matter of law precluding recovery by the injured operator of the motor vehicle and the next of kin of his fatally injured companion and fellow servant in a common employment.

This was deemed to be an issue of fact for the jury; and the propriety of the submission is the subject of inquiry here. There was a verdict of $50,000 for Battaglia, and $75,000 for the administratrix. The Appellate Division of the Superior Court affirmed the consequent judgments. The cases are here by certification at the instance of the defendant trustee. 15 N.J. 380, 104 A.2d 732.

The collision occurred May 6, 1952, at 6:45 P.M., Daylight Saving Time, in North Bergen, New Jersey, at the grade crossing formed by the intersection almost at a right angle of Secaucus Road, running generally east and west, and the southbound tracks of the New York, Susquehanna and Western Railroad Company and the northbound tracks of the Northern Railroad, four sets of tracks in all. By agreement, the two easterly sets of tracks were used by both Susquehanna and the Erie Railroad Company for passenger and freight traffic, northbound, and the two westerly tracks for southbound traffic. There was an area 56 feet wide between the northbound and southbound tracks, extending north of the crossing and 2,000 feet to the south, free of obstruction save a succession of telegraph poles running midway both north and south of the crossing, about 69 feet apart (29 of which were south of the crossing), and a mound of earth covered by grass and plant life rising from 2 1/2 feet to between 5 and 7 feet, according to the varying estimates of witnesses. The crossing was protected as a single unit. There were an automatic electric flasher, bell signals, and the standard cross-bar warning device at the extreme westerly side of the crossing, on the southerly side of Secaucus Road, and at the extreme easterly side of the crossing, on the northerly side of Secaucus Road. The flasher and bell signals were activated by train and rail contact within the signal circuit, north of the crossing on the Susquehanna or southbound tracks and south of the crossing on the Erie or northbound tracks. There was a siding 75 feet north of the crossing, extending from the westerly Susquehanna track into a packing plant.

Battaglia and the deceased Dann were on their way to New York in their employer's 1924 Mack truck, and in his service. When they reached the crossing, coming from the west, Susquehanna was engaged in a freight-car drilling or switching operation on its westerly southbound track in connection with the siding north of the crossing, and Battaglia brought his vehicle to a stop. The crossing flasher and bells were in action. After a lapse of five minutes, Susquehanna's brakeman, Terwilliger, disconnected the rear seven cars of the train then obstructing the crossing, at a point 75 feet north of the crossing, and the engine and ten cars, Terwilliger aboard the last car, proceeded south until the last car had passed over the crossing, when the train was halted on a signal given the engineer by Terwilliger, who thereupon alighted and, standing at the right rear and to the west of the last car, at a point not more than 20 feet south of the crossing, according to the plaintiffs' proofs, signaled the waiting drivers of vehicles on the west side of the crossing, among them Battaglia, first in line, to pass over the crossing. The adverse crossing signals the while remained in action; the detached cars were still within the signal circuit, and the signal contact continued. Proceeding over the crossing at the rate of between five and eight miles an hour, the truck was struck by a northbound Erie train. It was raining at the time. Battaglia testified the brakeman called to him as he gave the onward signal by a wave of the hand: 'Go ahead, nobody is coming.' The brakeman denied that, by word or deed, he gave the safe-crossing sign. He insisted that all his hand signals were directed to the train engineer alone; there is the suggestion of misinterpretation, although this could not be true of his oral direction to Battaglia. But the brakeman agreed he heard no whistle or bell signal from the engine of the oncoming Erie train, and he was unaware of its approach until the occurrence of the collision, and the 'sole purpose' of moving the train from the crossing was to permit the flow of vehicular traffic over the crossing. He said: 'We held the crossing five minutes, or about five minutes. According to law, you are not allowed to hold it any longer than that, so naturally I had to clear up the crossing and let traffic cross.' Although this was a scheduled Erie train, and he had on prior occasions worked with a drill engine at the particular time, and trains had 'probably passed by at that time,' he did not know 'for sure that there was a train scheduled at that time.' The giving of the clear signal was affirmed by all the occupants of motor vehicles in line following Battaglia's vehicle, and by four boys also waiting to go over the crossing on foot. To all the hand signal signified crossing safety. Terwilliger had but four months' experience as a brakeman. Erie was absolved of responsibility by the jury.

Conceding that the evidence raised a jury question as to Terwilliger's guilt of negligence attributable to Susquehanna under the common-law maxim of respondeat superior, it is yet insisted that Battaglia and his fellow worker were not entitled to rely 'entirely' on the brakeman, 'who was in no position to make a better observation than they;' that 'upon clearing the freight, they were in a superior position and bound to use reasonable care to make an independent and reasonably effective observation for their own safety,' and the conclusion is irresistible either (a) that Battaglia 'made his last observation when he reached the line of poles,' where 'he could not possibly see,' or (b) 'kept looking all the way past the poles but didn't see or hear the Erie train...

To continue reading

Request your trial
33 cases
  • Bates v. Valley Fair Enterprises, Inc.
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division
    • December 18, 1964 not to be 'endowed with attributes which properly belong to a person of exceptional perspicuity and foresight.' Battaglia v. Norton, 16 N.J. 171, 179, 108 A.2d 1, 5 (1954). * * * ' at p. 403, 126 A.2d at p. In Coffey v. Middlesex-Spotswood, Inc., plaintiff, a sheet metal worker employed ......
  • Kent v. Hudson County
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division
    • July 25, 1968
    ...of the existence Vel non of contributory negligence is one for determination by the jury rather than the court. Battaglia v. Norton, 16 N.J. 171, 179, 108 A.2d 1 (1954). The test is whether different minds could reasonably come to different conclusions as to the facts, or may reasonably dis......
  • Martin v. Bengue, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • December 9, 1957
    ...below the standard to which he was required to conform for his own protection. See Prosser, supra, at p. 283. Cf. Battaglia v. Norton, 16 N.J. 171, 179, 108 A.2d 1 (1954); Pangborn v. Central Railroad Co. of N.J., 18 N.J. 84, 93, 112 A.2d 705 (1955). The defendants assert that the plaintiff......
  • Seipel v. Sevek
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division
    • December 9, 1958
    ...R. Co., 130 N.J.L. 292, 32 A.2d 449 (E. & A. 1943); 38 Am.Jur. (Negligence), § 348, pp. 1052--1055.' In Battaglia v. Norton, 16 N.J. 171, 179, 108 A.2d 1, 5 (1954), the court 'Only in the clearest case of contributory fault, where the contrary hypothesis is not fairly admissible, does the q......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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