Cady v. Trenton & Mercer County Traction Corp.
| Decision Date | 14 May 1928 |
| Docket Number | No. 101.,101. |
| Citation | 141 A. 806 |
| Parties | CADY v. TRENTON & MERCER COUNTY TRACTION CORPORATION. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Appeal from Supreme Court.
Action by Jennie Cady against the Trenton & Mercer County Traction Corporation. From a judgment of nonsuit, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Martin P. Devlin, of Trenton, for appellant.
Edward L. Katzenbach, of Trenton, for respondent.
This is an appeal from a judgment of nonsuit awarded in the Mercer county circuit court.
The plaintiff appellant was crossing from the south to the north side of State street, In the city of Trenton, on the morning of December 3, 1925, at or near the point where the street is intersected by Chancery Lane. There are two street railway tracks on State street.
On the day the accident happened it was raining, and the plaintiff, carrying an umbrella, was walking across the east-bound track and as she stepped upon the west-bound track she was struck and injured by a trolley car which was going in a westerly direction. She brought her action against the company to recover compensation for the injuries which she sustained.
She testified, on direct examination, that when she reached the corner of Chancery Lane that the rain "came down in an awful downpour"; that she held an umbrella directly over her head; that when the "awful downpour came" she looked around for shelter, and, seeing none, deemed it best to cross the street and go into the bank building for shelter, and, holding the umbrella firmly over her head, she looked to see whether any trolley or automobile was coming, and, seeing none, proceeded to cross the street on the crosswalk; that she crossed the first track and had crossed the rail of the second track, when she was struck, and that is all she knew. She further testified, on cross-examination, that she looked to the east and to the west and saw no car or machine on the street, and after she started to cross never looked again for vehicles in the street.
It was stipulated in the case that State street, at the point where the appellant was struck by the car, is 36 feet from curb to curb.
Three other witnesses were produced by the plaintiff, the substance of whose testimony was that the plaintiff was seen crossing the street; that she had her umbrella down in such a position that it obscured her vision in the direction from which the car came that struck her. One of the three witnesses, all of whom were standing in the vestibule of the Trenton Trust Company, testified that as the appellant started to cross the street he observed the car coming, and called to warn her, but she proceeded on and was struck; that the car was going at a slow rate of speed, and before the accident happened, he saw a motorcar standing in front of the Trenton Trust Company's building, where he had taken shelter from the rain.
Upon this state of facts a motion for a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Miller v. Pub. Serv. Coordinated Transp.
...a jury question is presented and such motions must be denied. Andre v. Mertens, 88 N. J. Law, 626, 96 A. 893; Cady v. Trenton & Mercer, etc., Corp., 104 N. J. Law, 572, 141 A. 806. Here, regard being had to such rules, the question of contributory negligence was for the jury (as the trial j......
-
Apgar v. Hoffman Const. Co.
...the question at issue should go to the jury. Mumma v. Easton & Amboy R. Co., 73 N.J.L. 653, 65 A. 208; Cady v. Trenton & Mercer County Traction Corp., 104 N.J.L. 572, 141 A. 806. Appellant's third point is that the court erred in charging the jury that it was the duty of the driver to give ......
-
Ryan v. Deans
...that the minds of reasonable men cannot reasonably differ, the case is one for the jury to determine. Cady v. Trenton & Mercer County Traction Corp., 104 N. J. Law 572, 141 A. 806; Bennett v. Leeds, 96 N. J. Law, 405, 115 A. 750; Sadlon v. Jannarone, 102 N. J. Law, 343, 132 A. 740; Seibert ......
-
Lozio v. Perrone, 10.
...a jury question is presented and such motions must be denied. Andre v. Mertens, 88 N. J. Law, 626, 96 A. 893; Cady v. Trenton & Mercer, etc., Corp., 104 N. J. Law, 572, 141 A. 806. Here, regard being had to such rules, the question of defendant's negligence was for the jury (as the trial ju......