Blumenfeld v. Hudson & M R. Co.
| Decision Date | 20 November 1916 |
| Citation | 99 A. 312,89 N.J.Law 580 |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
| Parties | BLUMENFELD et al. v. HUDSON & M R. CO. |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Hudson County.
Action by Hattie Blumenfeld and others against the Hudson & Manhattan Railroad Company. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiffs appeal. Judgment affirmed.
Warren Dixon, of Jersey City, for appellants. Collins & Corbin, of Jersey City, for appellee.
In an action for damages for personal injuries, the defendant had the verdict and judgment. The negligence charged was as follows: "Said plaintiff Hattie Blumenfeld proceeded to enter the door of said second train for the purpose of such transportation in the usual manner provided by said defendant, and while in the act of entering the same, and while partially through the said doorway, and partially upon said car, the guard and agent of said defendant suddenly closed, or caused to be closed, the said door, and in closing same struck the said door against the body of the said plaintiff, Hattie Blumenfeld, and caught and squeezed her in said doorway, and caused the said door to strike plaintiff, Hattie Blumenfeld, on the abdomen and side."
The plaintiffs appealed, and the sole ground for reversal argued by their counsel is thus stated in his brief:
"The court erred in charging the jury that 'the duty of the defendant company through its agents and servants was and is to use reasonable care for the safety of its passengers upon its station platforms and as they enter and leave their cars.'"
There was no error in the legal proposition thus charged. Reasonable care is the proper description and designation of the duty that is imposed by law under certain conditions; it covers the entire range of such duty. Whether under the circumstances of a given case the degree of care that is reasonable be high or low, it is imposed by law solely upon the ground that it is reasonable; e. g., in the storing of dynamite near human habitations the care that is reasonable is of the very highest degree, while in the dumping of sand on a vacant lot the care that is reasonable is by comparison of the very lowest degree, and yet equally and in either case the care appropriate to the danger is imposed by law upon the ground that is reasonable. Gellatty v. Central R. R. Co., 86 N. J. Law, 416, 92 Atl. 279.
The language therefore of the charge was a correct statement of the law. It does not follow that the plaintiff below may not have been entitled...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Garafola v. Rosecliff Realty Co.
...attendant upon the activity pursued. Goldberg v. New York Tel. Co., 2 N.J.Misc. 449 (Sup.Ct.1924); Blumenfeld v. Hudson & Manhattan Railroad Co., 89 N.J.L. 580, 99 A. 312 (E. & A.1916); 38 Am.Jur., Negligence, secs. 29, 31, pp. 673, 677. * * *' , $tIt is stated further in 38 Am.Jur., supra,......
-
Simpson v. Duffy
...attendant upon the activity pursued. Goldberg v. New York Tel. Co., 2 N.J.Misc. 449 (Sup.Ct.1924); Blumenfeld v. Hudson & Manhattan Railroad Co., 89 N.J.L. 580, 99 A. 312 (E. & A.1916); 38 Am.Jur., Negligence, secs. 29, 31, pp. 673, 677. What would constitute such care in a country non-self......
-
Spalt v. Eaton
...of care that is reasonable be high or low, it is imposed by law solely upon the ground that it is reasonable." Blumenfeld v. Hudson & M. R. Co., 89 N.J.Law, 580, 99 A. 312, 313. And the Massachusetts courts hold that the standard of care imported by the term "highest degree of care" is "rea......
-
Niles v. Phillips Express Co.
...And experience is necessarily a factor of importance in the application of this comparative standard. See Blumenfeld v. Hudson, etc., R. Co., 89 N.J.Law, 580, 99 A. 312. The term connotes such degree of care as is commensurate with the risk of harm, such as a reasonable man would under all ......