Bobbink v. Brie R. Co.
Decision Date | 02 March 1908 |
Parties | BOBBINK et al. v. BRIE R. CO. et al. |
Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error to Supreme Court.
Action by Lambertus C. Bobbink and others against the Erie Railroad Company and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs bring error. Affirmed.
George P. Rust and Arthur S. Corbin, for plaintiff in error. Collins & Corbin, for defendant in error Erie R. Co. William B. Gourley, for defendant in error Jersey City H. P. St. R. R. Co.
The horse of the plaintiffs caught its foot in a device used by the defendants on Passaic street, in the city of Passaic, where the tracks of the defendants crossed each other, which resulted in throwing the animal and seriously injuring it. This suit was institued to recover damages for such injury, and at the close of plaintiffs' case a judgment of nonsuit was entered by direction of the court, to reverse which this writ of error is prosecuted.
The plaintiffs' driver testified that, when crossing the tracks at Passaic street, "I had to swing around in the trolley track to the right to avoid other trucks coming east and going west, and my nigh side forefoot caught in the slot of the trolley and the Erie track, and threw him." This was the only description given of the accident, and manifestly the occurrence as described does not raise a presumption of negligence on the part of the defendants, and the case would fall, if there was no other proof, under the rule laid down in Bahr v. Lombard, Ayres & Co., 53 N. J. Law, 233, 21 Atl. 190, 23 Atl. 107. But the plaintiffs undertook to avoid this fatal infirmity in their case by attempting to show that the device was a negligent construction, obviously defective and dangerous, and its use at the place in question an act of negligence by the defendants. The only testimony on this branch of the case was given by an expert called by the plaintiffs, who testified as follows: It thus appears from plaintiffs' witness that the frog used by the defendants was of a standard pattern in general use...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Miller v. Muscarelle
...... Ibid.; Bobbink v. Erie Railroad Co., 75 N.J.L. 913, 69 A. 204 (E. & A. 1908); Crouse v. Stacy-Trent Co., 110 N.J.L. 124, 164 A. 294 (E. & A. 1933); Vander Groef v. ......
-
Cassanova v. Paramount-Richards Theatres
...Corp. v. Lindsay [47 Ariz. 388], 56 P.2d [183], 185; Crouse v. Stacy-Trent Co. [110 N.J.L. 124], 164 A. 294; Bobbink v. Erie R. Co., 75 N.J.L. 913, 69 A. 204; Carty v. Boeseke-Dawe Co., 2 Cal.App. 646, 84 P. 267; Mobile & O. R. Co. v. Vallowe, 214 Ill. 124, 73 N.E. 416; Temprance Hall Ass'n......
-
Harpell v. Public Service Coordinated Transport
...... because it is not shown to have departed from customary standards of construction and equipment germane to considerations of safety, citing Bobbink v. Erie R.R. Co., 75 N.J.L. 913, 69 A. 204 (E. & A.1908); Traphagen v. Erie R.R. Co., 73 N.J.L. 759, 64 A. 1072, 67 A. 753 (E. & A.1906); Byron v. ......
-
Vander Groef v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., A--641
...occurrence or absence of other accidents to establish or negative defendant's negligence. See, for example, Bobbink v. Erie R. Co., 75 N.J.L. 913, 915, 69 A. 204 (E. & A. 1908); O'Brien v. Staiger, 101 N.J.L. 526, 528, 129 A. 485 (E. & A. 1925); Crouse v. Stacy-Trent Co., 110 N.J.L. 124, 12......