Girdwood v. Balder

• Decision Date: 13 March 1928
• Docket Number: No. 54.,54.
• Citation: 140 A. 894
• Parties: GIRDWOOD et al. v. BALDER et al.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

140 A. 894

GIRDWOOD et al.

v. BALDER et al.

No. 54.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

March 13, 1928.

Suit to recover for personal injuries by William Girdwood and another against Jesse G. Balder and another, partners, etc. Verdict for plaintiffs. On defendants' rule to show cause why verdicts should not be set aside. Rule discharged.

Argued October term, 1927, before GUMMERE, C. J., and BLACK and LLOYD, JJ.

Jacob Schneider, of Newark, for the rule.

Stamler & Koestler, of Elizabeth, opposed.

PER CURIAM. The plaintiff William Girdwood sued to recover compensation for personal injuries received by him in a collision between an automobile which he was driving, and which belonged to the other plaintiff, with a load of lumber upon a truck of the defendants which had been stalled, or stuck in the mud, while entering the premises of the Eastern Sash Company for the purpose of delivering lumber to their plant, which was located on Morris avenue, in Union county. The other plaintiff, E. Nelson Girdwood, sued to recover compensation for damage done to the automobile, which he owned, and which William was driving. The trial resulted in a verdict in favor of the two plaintiffs.

The first ground upon which we are asked to set aside the verdict is that the trial court erred in refusing to grant a nonsuit or direct a verdict in favor of the defendants. The ground of the motion was that the proofs showed conclusively that the accident was solely the result of the negligence of William Girdwood in failing to observe the situation. The proofs showed that this truck belonging to the defendants was stalled across the road. It had a trailer to it. There was room to pass behind the trailer, except for the fact that it was loaded with lumber which projected a considerable distance beyond the rear end thereof. The day was very foggy. There was nothing to indicate the presence of the projecting timbers, no light hung on the end thereof, and no person in charge thereof to warn travelers on the highway of the existing situation. In view of these facts, the trial court considered that the question whether William Girdwood was negligent was not one of law, to be determined by the court, but one of fact, to be settled by the jury. We concur in the conclusion reached by the trial judge upon this point.

The only other ground upon which we are asked to interfere with the verdict is based upon the contention that the trial court erred in allowing three witnesses who were called...