Hammond v. Morrison

• Decision Date: 05 March 1917
• Parties: HAMMOND v. MORRISON.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

100 A. 154
90 N.J.Law. 15

HAMMOND
v.
MORRISON.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

March 5, 1917.

Action by Myra Hammond, administratrix of the estate of Edwin J. Hammond, against James L. Morrison. There was a verdict for defendant. On plaintiff's rule to show cause why judgment should not be rendered for her. Rule made absolute.

Argued November term, 1916, before GUMMERE, C. J., and TRENCHARD and BLACK, JJ.

Leonard J. Tynan, of Newark, for the rule. William I. Lewis, of Paterson, opposed.

GUMMERE, C. J. This action was brought to recover damages growing out of the death of Edwin J. Hammond, resulting from injuries received by being struck by the defendant's automobile. The accident occurred near midnight of February 19, 1915, at the crossing of Broadway in the city of Paterson with the tracks of the New York, Susquehanna & Western Railroad Company. The decedent was a conductor in the employ of the public service corporation, and at the time of the accident had gone to the rear of his car for the purpose of adjusting the trolley, which had jumped the wire at or about the railway crossing; and while engaged in this work was run into by the defendant's automobile, and crushed between it and the rear of the trolley car. The verdict of the jury on the trial of the cause resulted in the exoneration of the defendant.

This verdict cannot be justified. The only issue in the case was whether or not decedent's death was the result of the negligence of the defendant; the question of contributory negligence not having been presented by the pleadings. The defendant did not deny that the decedent came to his death in the way above stated, but attempted to excuse himself upon the ground that just before the collision the street lights which he had passed were reflected into his eyes by the wind shield of his car, so that he was unable to see in front of him, and that this temporary blindness was the cause of the collision. His own story demonstrates his lack of care. No man is entitled to operate an automobile through a public street blindfolded. When his vision is temporarily destroyed in the way which the defendant indicated, it is his duty to stop his car, and so adjust his wind shield as to prevent its interfering with his ability to see in front of him. The defendant, instead of doing this, took the chance of finding the way clear, and ran blindly into the trolley car behind which the decedent was standing. Having seen fit to do this, he cannot escape...