Black v. Central Railroad Co.

• Decision Date: 17 November 1913
• Citation: Black v. Central Railroad Co., 85 N.J.L. 197, 89 A. 24 (N.J. 1913)
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
• Parties: CHARLES BLACK, APPELLANT, v. CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY, RESPONDENT

89 A. 24

85 N.J.L. 197

BLACK

v. CENTRAL R. CO.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

Nov. 17, 1913.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Hudson County.

Action by Charles Black against the Central Railroad Company.From judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals.Reversed.

This was an action for damages for personal injuries, in which a verdict for the defendant was directed at the trial.The declaration is that defendant operated a railroad track over a certain public street or highway, commonly called Johnson avenue, at grade; that it became the duty of the railroad company by reason of the extraordinary danger, due to obstruction of view, to give reasonable notice and warning, not only by the ringing of the bell or blowing of the whistle as required by the statute, but also by other signals or extra precaution by means of a flagman or gates or otherwise; that the plaintiff, an infant, sustained injuries in a collision with defendant's engine while proceeding along said highway.The negligence averred is that defendant failed to sound a whistle or ring a bell as provided by the statute, and failed to give any warning of the approach of said engine, and failed to have at said crossing any flagman or other servant or any warning device of any nature or kind whatsoever, and failed and neglected in any manner to notify plaintiff of the approach of said engine.

The place of accident was within the terminal yard of the defendant at Communipaw, where the railroad property, extending on both sides of a roadway, is connected by crossover tracks at several points, at one of which crossings the collision took place.The crossing in question is between 500 and 1,000 feet westerly from the docks and ferry of the defendant and nearly half a mile distant from the entrance to the railroad property from the west.The roadway which connects with Johnson avenue, a street of Jersey City, and continues it through the railroad property has existed for very many years, and affords a way to the docks and ferries of the defendant There was evidence of the constant use of such way by such of the public as had occasion to use it, and no proof that any one was prevented from using it.

The railroad company originally built the road.About four or five years ago the road was paved with granite blocks by the railroad company at its own expense, and is maintained by the railroad company at its own expense.The road is lighted with electric lights paid for by the railroad company.The pavement is repaired from time to time by the railroad company at its own expense.The road is also sprinkled and cleaned froth time to time by the railroad company at its own expense, and for the past 25 years has been policed by the police of Jersey City.At the points where the railroad tracks cross this roadway watchmen are regularly stationed and maintained by the defendant.

The plaintiff, a boy of 15, was employed by the United States Express Company under a contract similar to that passed upon in the case of Dodd v. Central R. R. Co., 80 N.J.Law, 56, 76 Atl. 544.On the evening of the accident, having finished work for the day, the plaintiff started to drive his team to the company's stable.The facts concerning the accident, stated most favorably to the plaintiff, as they must be where a verdict for the defendant has been directed, are that, as the plaintiff drove his team along the roadway known as Johnson avenue, he approached a railroad crossing, and when near to it stopped his team, and listened for approaching trains, and, hearing nothing to indicate such approach, he started on, and crossed the first track, and had nearly cleared the second when his wagon was struck by a locomotive engine proceeding from behind some sheds on the north side of the track.This engine was running in a southerly direction, and no bell was rung or whistle sounded until immediately before the engine struck the wagon.There was no flagman at the crossing to warn the plaintiff.There was contradictory testimony as to all of these matters, and at the close of the casecounsel for the defendant moved for the direction of a verdict on three grounds: First, that the plaintiff was a mere licensee upon the private property of the defendant, as to whom no actionable negligence had been shown; second, that there was no evidence that the place where the accident happened was a public highway; and, third, contributory negligence.The motion was granted, and the plaintiff took this appeal.

Warren Dixon, of Jersey City, for appellant.

McDermott & Enright, of Jersey City, for respondent.

GARRISON, J.(after stating the facts).The plaintiff was injured while driving along a way which, if not a street, had very much the appearance of one.It was a continuation of a city street.It was paved like a street.It was lighted and sprinkled like a street it was patroled by the city police like other streets, and where it was...