Clayton v. Vallaster, 35.

• Decision Date: 22 September 1937
• Docket Number: No. 35.,35.
• Citation: 194 A. 167,118 N.J.L. 568
• Parties: CLAYTON v. VALLASTER et al.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

194 A. 167

118 N.J.L. 568

CLAYTON

v. VALLASTER et al.

No. 35.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

September 22, 1937.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. Unless it is established by the evidence beyond fair debate that the plaintiff was negligent and that the negligence directly contributed to the injury complained of, a motion for nonsuit or direction of a verdict upon the ground of contributory negligence will be denied.

2. Where the existence of contributory negligence upon the part 6f the plaintiff depends upon the conclusion to be reached from a variety of circumstances considered in their relation to and their reaction upon each other, the jury, and not the court, is normally the tribunal to draw such conclusion.

3. Where the driver of an automobile upon a public highway, without any fault on his part, is placed in a position of imminent peril by another vehicle, the law will not hold him guilty of such negligence as to defeat his recovery if he does not select the very wisest course, and an honest mistake in judgment in such sudden emergency will not of itself constitute contributory negligence, although another course might have been better and safer. All that is required from a person in such an emergency is to act with ordinary care in the circumstances, it being for the jury to determine whether such emergency existed and whether he acted with due care.

4. Evidence examined and held that motions to nonsuit and to direct a verdict upon the ground of contributory negligence were properly denied.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Ocean County.

Action by Walter H. Clayton against Wilbur Vallaster and another. From a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, the defendants appeal.

Affirmed.

Collins & Corbin, of Jersey City (Edward A. Markley and Charles W. Broadhurst, both of Jersey City, of counsel), for appellants. Camp, Lederer & Citta, of Toms River (Percy Camp and Robert A. Lederer, both of Toms River, of counsel), for respondent.

TRENCHARD, Justice.

This is the appeal of the defendants below from plaintiff's judgment entered upon the verdict of the jury.

At the trial the evidence tended to show (among others) the following matters of fact: In the early hours of the morning of July 9, 1936 (between 1 and 2 o'clock), the plaintiff was driving his automobile at a speed of from 35 to 40 miles an hour on state highway No. 4 in Ocean county, commonly known as the Atlantic City boulevard. The road was paved with 20 feet of concrete, with 5-foot dirt shoulders on either side. The night was dark but the road was dry. His headlights were burning and lighted up the road about 75 feet ahead. The road was straight with a slight upgrade. Suddenly there loomed up in front of the plaintiff a huge object which he said looked like a house, occupying somewhat more than the right-hand side of the road. It turned out to be a trailer, owned by the defendant Groves Company, upon which there were no lights, and which was drawn by a motor vehicle that the defendant Vallaster (an employee of the owner) was driving, and on top of the trailer was some road building machinery, including a concrete mixer. The trailer, if moving at all, was moving in the same direction as the plaintiff. When the plaintiff saw this obstruction ahead of him, it was about 50 or 60 feet distant. His brakes were in good condition. He immediately applied his brakes hard, which would ordinarily enable him to stop within about 75 feet; but notwithstanding the fact that his brakes were on (as shown by the testimony and the skid marks) he collided with the rear of the trailer. This suit was brought by plaintiff to recover for his property...