Kalleberg v. Raritan River R. Co.
Decision Date | 19 November 1917 |
Docket Number | No. 104.,104. |
Citation | 102 A. 350,91 N.J.Law 222 |
Parties | KALLEBERG. v. RARITAN RIVER R. CO. |
Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Appeal from Supreme Court.
Action by Andrea Kalleberg, administratrix, etc., against the Raritan River. Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Judgment of the Supreme Court reversed for new trial.
Edwin F. Smith, of Jersey City, for appellant. Jehlel G. Shipman and Franklin W. Fort, both of Newark, for appellee.
PARKER, J. Plaintiff's decedent sustained fatal injuries at a station of the defendant company called Parlin, where there was a large manufacturing plant employing some hundreds of men, who were accustomed to take an afternoon train at the station for their homes. There were several tracks, the one nearest the station building being the regular passenger track, the others farther away being used for switching purposes.
The station was a new one, and its arrangement at the time of the accident was not yet complete. The train in question was used by large numbers of the factory hands, who, in the rush to get aboard and obtain seats, were accustomed to crowd each other and leap aboard the train as it slowly drew into the station and as it was even starting out. Such conditions are not uncommon at the closing hour of large manufacturing plants near railroad stations. Prior to the day of the accident the other tracks had been clear, and the crowd of waiting workmen had occupied not only the space on the station side of the main track, but had swarmed across that track and occupied the tracks on the other side, so as to board the incoming train from both sides. On the day in question, however, three freight cars had been placed on the second track, the one next beyond the main track, so that in order to board the passenger train from that side it was necessary to stand between the standing and the moving train in a narrow space which amounted to the distance between the nearest rails of the two tracks less the overhang of a car on each; probably not over three feet if as much. In this narrow space, which was also on a curve, the decedent and a number of others took their stand, waiting for the train, and as it drew in, the first men that it reached undertook to climb aboard. One, according to the evidence, missed his footing, or his handhold, swung out from the train, and by its movement was caused to strike others in the line of men between the tracks, including...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Meyonberg v. Pennsylvania R. Co.
...or at least the possibility, of its taking place.3 Likewise, the Kinsey case distinguished as in-apposite Kalleberg v. Raritan River R. Co., 1917, 91 N.J.L. 222, 102 A. 350, and Seckler v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 1934, 113 N.J.L. 299, 174 A. 501, the other cases which defendant asserts are in ......
-
Kinsey v. Hudson & Manhattan R. Co.
...its passengers-citing Miller v. West Jersey, etc., R. Co., 71 N.J.L. 363, 59 A. 13; Id., 79 N.J.L. 499, 76 A. 973; Kalleberg v. Raritan River R. Co., 91 N.J.L. 222, 102 A. 350; Seckler v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 113 N.J.L. 299, 174 A. 501; Overbeck v. Erie R. Co., 187 A. 648, 14 N.J.Misc. 816.......
-
Sandler v. Hudson & M. R. Co.
...Service, 79 N. J. Law, 134, 74 A. 272; Hoff v. Public Service, 91 N. J. Law, 641, 103 A. 209, 15 A. L. R. 860; Kalleberg v. Raritan, etc., R. R. Co., 91 N. J. Law, 222, 102 A. 350; Lerner v. Public Service, 83 N. J. Law, 64, 84 A. 618; and Exton v. Central R. R. Co., 62 N. J. Law, 7, 42 A. ......
- Siegeler v. Neuweiler