Bergen County Traction Co. v. Bliss

• Citation: 62 N.J.L. 410,41 A. 837
• Parties: BERGEN COUNTY TRACTION CO. v. BLISS.
• Decision Date: 23 November 1898
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

41 A. 837

62 N.J.L. 410

BERGEN COUNTY TRACTION CO.

v. BLISS.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

Nov. 23, 1898.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error to supreme court.

Action by Alexander T. Bliss against the Bergen County Traction Company. Verdict for plaintiff. Defendant brings error. Reversed.

Leon Abbett and James B. Vredenburgh, for plaintiff in error.

John I. Weller, for defendant in error.

NIXON, J. The writ in this cause brings here the record of a suit in the supreme court, tried at the Hudson circuit, in which the defendant in error recovered judgment against the plaintiff in error for injuries received in a collision of two electric motor cars. The Bergen County Traction Company operates a single-track electric railroad between Ft, Lee Ferry and Englewood, with sidings or turnouts at certain points where cars moving in opposite directions may pass. These turnouts are designated by numbers, and the accident occurred between No. 1 and No. 2, on the morning of March 3, 1897, and was occasioned by the failure of one of the colliding cars to remain on the siding until the approaching car passed it To prevent delays, as well as accidents, the company was using at the time of this collision the Ramsey block signals. This system of signals consists of boxes placed about five feet high on the poles at the side of the track on which the trolley wires are run. In the boxes are two apartments, in each of which are lamps, and at the bottom of the box are handles, which, when properly turned, control the lights, by making the circuit between the box at one turnout with the box at the next which two boxes are connected with wires, and these wires are again connected with the feed wires of the trolley road. In practical operation, when a car comes to a turnout or sidiug, it either remains on the siding or goes on, according to the signals displayed, a red light meaning to remain, and a dark signal or no light indicating a clear track and to go ahead; and it is also the duty of each conductor in passing a siding to turn the handles, and thus set the signals for both the car behind and the one approaching not to enter the same block. On the morning of the accident, the car on which the defendant in error was employed as motorman came to the siding known as No. 1, and found the signal box dark, which Indicates a clear track; and, proceeding into the next block, the collision occurred, and consequent injuries, which resulted in the suit and judgment now under review. The alleged negligence of the traction company was, of course, the foundation of the action, and the averments of the plaintiff's declaration charge neglect in the operation of the road generally, and more specifically in the use of a defective system of block signals, and also the negligent supervision and imperfect condition of the wires at the time of the accident, by reason of which those operating the cars were misled by false signals.

The assignments of error are seven in number, but with several of them it will not be necessary to deal. The first need not be considered, for it is fully embraced in the third, and they can be disposed of together. The second is entirely too vague, and, upon a careful inspection of the record, we fail to find any exceptions signed and sealed which justify its presentation to this court. The fourth, that the trial judge erred in refusing to grant a motion of nonsuit when the plaintiff rested his case, cannot be sustained. There was proof at that stage of the trial to show that the signals had misled the plaintiff below to his injury, and evidence had been given as to the possible existence of certain causes which may have led to the derangement of the signals; and whether the conditions actually existed, and, if existing, were sufficient to cause the accident, and, if they were sufficient, then whether they were in any way chargeable to the negligence of the traction company, were questions already raised by the evidence, which it was clearly the province of the jury to pass upon, and the trial judge did not err in denying the defendant's motion. The fifth assignment, that there was error in refusing to direct a verdict for the defendant cannot be considered for the same reasons, greatly augmented by the additional evidence in direct conflict with that previously given. The sixth, which is an exception to the refusal of the judge to charge as therein requested, can be disposed of by merely stating that, while the request undoubtedly contains a correct rule of law, we think it was substantially presented to the jury in the very able and comprehensive charge which forms a part of the record. The court only declined to charge "other than already charged." That the refusal to adopt the language of a request furnishes no ground for an assignment of error, when the same legal principle has been given to the Jury in another form, has been repeatedly announced by this court. The seventh assignment need not be separately discussed, as it is practically included in the others.

The exception that demands special consideration is...