Beck v. Hines
| Decision Date | 15 November 1920 |
| Docket Number | No. 16.,16. |
| Citation | 112 A. 332 |
| Parties | BECK et al. v. HINES, Director General of Railroads. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Union County.
Action by Julia Beck and others against Walker D. Hines, Director General of Railroads, resulting in directed verdict for defendant, and plaintiffs appeal. Reversed.
J. A. Kiernan, of Elizabeth, for appellants. Devoe Tomlinson, of Jersey City, for respondent.
MINTURN, J. When the New Jersey Central ferryboat Wilkesbarre was leaving her slip about 2 p. m. on the 19th of March, 1919, at Jersey City, with a complement of passengers, upon their way to the city of New York, the United States transport Great Northern was at the Battery on her course up the center of the Hudson river. The pilot of the ferryboat saw the transport at the Battery shortly after the former left the slip, but he proceeded upon his course across the river under slow speed until the transport had passed him. The approach of the transport, whose passengers were made up of returning soldiers, resulted in inducing many of the passengers on the ferryboat to leave the cabins, and take their stand upon the forward deck of the ferryboat. While they were occupying that position of observation, one or more large waves or wash from the transport's speedy course dashed with great force over the lower deck of the ferryboat, flooding the same and causing a general retreat of the passengers to the cabins, injuring some, and wetting all who were not able to retreat in time to avoid the waves. Among the latter was this plaintiff, Mrs. Beck, who, in her effort to escape the swell and wash of water on the deck, fell, was trodden upon by others in their endeavors to escape, and was injured, to recover damage for which injuries she instituted this suit.
The learned trial court directed a verdict for the defendant upon the ground that no evidence of negligence upon the part of the defendant was shown, and hence this appeal.
The plaintiff testified that the second wave over the deck caused the floor to be so slippery that her feet slipped and she fell with great force to the deck.
She further testified:
The water she says came up to her waist, and that the ferryboat at the time was about 60 or 70 feet from the transport, so that plaintiff "could clearly make out the faces of the different soldiers standing along the rails, and hear the different messages they were shouting out."
The transport was proceeding at a rate or 15 or 20 miles an hour. The normal speed in such a situation was between 8 and 10 miles an hour. The center of the river is its most shallow section, and the result was that her great speed in this shallow depth caused the waves to swell over to both shores. The Wilkesbarre was caused to "bob around like a cork." Two of the waves went over the bows of the Bound Brook a sister ferryboat half a mile away, and also went over the bows of the Lackawanna ferryboat Scandinavia 300 feet away. The Plainfield, then lying in the New York ferry slip of defendant, was "bounced around like a cork." The Bed Bank of the same line was so tossed about in the Jersey slip that the passengers and vehicles were detained on the boat until the waters had subsided. The Washington of the Pennsylvania line was so violently tossed about that her captain declared on the stand, "I have never seen a boat jump so since I have been in the business."
This statement of the general situation is given to evince the fact that the situation was abnormal, and that the effect of it was not overstated by the plaintiff in her narration of the scene upon the Wilkesbarre. The testimony varied as to the distance the Wilkesbarre was from the transport at the time, some witnesses placing it as near as 800 feet away, while the porter of the Wilkesbarre placed the distance at 80 or 90 feet.
The testimony of one pilot of the Central Railroad was to the effect that the ferryboat might be safe 250 feet away, but that she would be in dangerous waters when 100 feet away. One pilot testified that he would not want to be within 90...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Menth v. Breeze Corp.
...The test of duty imposed by law upon a defendant so circumstanced, is to exercise 'reasonable foresight for harm'. Beck v. Hines, 95 N.J.L. 158, 162, 112 A. 332 (E. & A. 1920). In this connection, it was said in the recent case of Carlo v. Okonite-Callender Cable Co., 3 N.J. 253, 263, 69 A.......
-
Bevilacqua v. Sutter
...the road and collide with a pole. Smith v. Kirby, supra: Mackenzie v. Oakley, 94 N.J.L. 66, 108 A. 771 (Sup.Ct.1920); Beck v. Hines, 95 N.J.L. 158, 112 A. 332 (E. & A.1920); Journey v. Zawish, 167 A. 7, 11 N.J.Misc. 482 (Sup.Ct.1933); Spill v. Stoeckert, 125 N.J.L. 382, 15 A.2d 773 (E. & A.......
-
Scamporino v. Chapman Chevrolet Co.
...of the reasonable exercise of the ‘foresight for harm’ doctrine. That is the rationale of the rule of due care. Cf. Beck v. Hines, 95 N.J.L. 158, 162, 112 A. 332. That principle is controlled by the facts of each case under consideration. The question in each case is whether the act of the ......
-
Terranella v. Union Bldg. & Const. Co., A--44
...'* * * the rationale of the rule of due care is the reasonable exercise of 'the foresight for harm. " Beck v. Hines, 95 N.J.L. 158, 112 A. 332, 333 (E. & A. 1920). In Niles v. Phillips Express Co., 118 N.J.L. 455, 193 A. 183, 186 (E. & A. 1937), the court said: 'There was laid upon him the ......