Collins v. W. Jersey Express Co.

• Decision Date: 20 November 1905
• Citation: 72 N.J.L. 231,62 A. 675
• Parties: COLLINS v. WEST JERSEY EXPRESS CO.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

62 A. 675

72 N.J.L. 231

COLLINS

v. WEST JERSEY EXPRESS CO.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

Nov. 20, 1905.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error to Supreme Court.

Action by Daniel E. Collins against the West Jersey Express Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Reversed.

Matthew Jefferson, for plaintiff in error. Joseph H. Gaskill, for defendant in error.

GARRISON, J. A servant of the defendant, while driving an express wagon along Central avenue in Atlantic City, struck the hind wheel of a wagon that was standing by the curb, and forced it against the horse, which was unhitched, whereat the horse took fright and ran away. The horse turned into New York avenue and ran up on the sidewalk, where the plaintiff was standing near some lumber that was piled up in the street The plaintiff, to avoid being hit by the runaway horse, jumped aside and broke his leg over the board pile, and thereupon sued the defendant for damages and was nonsuited.

We think that this nonsuit was wrong. The striking of the standing wagon by the defendant's wagon was unquestionably the initial force that set in motion the train of circumstances by which the plaintiff was injured, none of which had their rise in any intervening force or other cause.

The board pile over which the plaintiff fell, while it was a condition of his injury, was not its cause. 21 Ency. Law, p. 494.

Likewise the circumstance that the horse was standing unhitched, while it was a condition that rendered its running away more likely, was not the cause of that occurrence.

Moreover, as the man in charge of this team was engaged in loading the wagon from a box that stood beside it on the curb, he may not have been negligent in allowing his horse to be unhitched. Belles v. Kellner, 67 N. J. Law, 255, 51 Atl. 700, 54 Atl. 99, 57 L. R. A. 627, 91 Am. St. Rep. 429.

Both the running away of the horse and the plaintiff's fall over the lumber relate back to the collision that caused the runaway, and whether that was a negligent act in the defendant's servant was clearly a jury question.

The cases upon intervening and concurring causes are collected in a series of notes in 21 Ency. Law, p. 492 et seq., and also in the annotations to Scott v. Shephard, Smith Lead. Cases, vol. 1, p. 754.

The judgment of the Supreme Court is reversed.