Beck v. Washington
| Decision Date | 06 May 1977 |
| Citation | 374 A.2d 478,149 N.J.Super. 569 |
| Parties | Andrew P. BECK, Jr., Plaintiff-appellant, v. Jean A. WASHINGTON, Defendant-Respondent. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
Valentine & Seltzer, Pleasantville, for plaintiff-appellant (George L. Seltzer, Pleasantville, on the brief).
Horn, Weinstein, Kaplan & Goldberg, Atlantic City, for defendant-respondent (Mark Soifer, Atlantic City, on the brief).
Before Judges FRITZ, ARD and PRESSLER.
This is an appeal from a jury verdict in favor of defendant in an action for personal injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident.
The accident occurred at the intersection of Bayview Avenue and Chestnut Street, Pleasantville, New Jersey. Plaintiff was traveling south on Chestnut Street and defendant was traveling east on Bayview Avenue. Bayview Avenue is controlled by a stop sign at its intersection with Chestnut Street. The accident took place at about 8:30 a.m. on the morning of March 28, 1973. 1 Both streets were of equal width and located in a residential area. The weather conditions were clear and dry.
The parties differed sharply on the events immediately preceding the accident. Plaintiff testified he was proceeding south on Chestnut Street at a speed of 15 to 20 miles an hour when he observed defendant, Plaintiff testified he was proceeding south intersection without stopping. Plaintiff swerved to the right, hoping to avoid a collision but was unable to do so and struck defendant's vehicle in the left rear. Plaintiff also adduced testimony that defendant had pleaded guilty to a charge of failing to yield at the intersection.
Defendant testified that she stopped and twice looked to the left before attempting to cross Chestnut Street. She testified that the way was clear on both observations and that she observed plaintiff's vehicle traveling at a high rate of speed only 'split seconds' before the collision.
Plaintiff alleges the following as error: (1) the verdict was against the weight of the evidence; (2) the trial judge erred in refusing to instruct the jury that in determining contributory negligence they should realize 'a motor vehicle approaching an intersecting stop street has a right to expect the vehicles on the stop street to behave in a reasonable manner' in accordance with the applicable statute, and (3) the judge committed reversible error in charging N.J.S.A. 39:4--90 and N.J.S.A. 39:4--67 with reference to an intersection governed by a stop sign.
The proofs were more than sufficient to allow a reasonable jury to determine that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence or defendant was free of negligence. The judge's denial of plaintiff's motion for a new trial on this ground was not a miscarriage of justice under the law. R. 2:10--1; Dolson v. Anastasia, 55 N.J. 2, 258 A.2d 706 (1969).
Also meritless is plaintiff's claim that the court committed reversible error when it refused to instruct the jury, as requested, that in determining contributory negligence they should realize 'a motor vehicle approaching an intersecting stop street has a right to expect the vehicles on the stop street to behave in a reasonable manner' in accordance with the applicable statute. Although there is no New Jersey case directly on point, the general rule appears to be that the favored driver's right to assume that the disfavored driver will obey a stop sign is qualified by the favored driver's continuing duty to exercise due care. 60A C.J.S. Motor Vehicles § 363(8) (1969); 3 Blashfield Automobile Law and Practice (3 ed. 1965), § 114.111--114.112; Annotation, 'Liability for automobile accident at intersection as affected by reliance upon or disregard of unchanging stop signal or sign,' 3 A.L.R.3d 180 (1965). Since these qualifying words were omitted, plaintiff's request to charge was only partially correct, and a partially correct charge may properly be rejected. Massotto v. Public Service Coord. Transport., 71 N.J.Super. 39, 47--48, 176 A.2d 280 (App.Div.1961).
However, we do agree with plaintiff that the judge committed reversible error in charging N.J.S.A....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tichenor v. Santillo
...the jury could properly have concluded that plaintiff was partially at fault in the situation presented. See Beck v. Washington, 149 N.J.Super. 569, 572, 374 A.2d 478 (App.Div.1977). Accordingly, the trial judge erred in setting aside the jury's determination that plaintiff was 40% Plaintif......
-
Burdzy v. Cooney
...a standard of care at an intersection where, as here, the traffic is controlled by a yield sign. Cf. Beck v. Washington, 149 N.J.Super. 569, 573, 374 A.2d 478 (App.Div.1977); DePolo v. Caplan, 119 N.J.Super. 56, 58, 290 A.2d 152 (App.Div.1972). The appropriate standard of care is codified i......
-
Troiani-Schwartz v. Dicker
...defendant had a duty to make proper observations as she approached and entered the intersection. See Beck v. Washington, 149 N.J. Super. 569, 572 (App. Div. 1977). Plaintiff presented no evidence from which a jury could conclude defendant breached the duty to make reasonable observations. N......