Larsen v. Raritan Valley Farms, Inc.

• Decision Date: 17 October 1932
• Docket Number: Nos. 4, 5.,s. 4, 5.
• Citation: 162 A. 737
• Parties: LARSEN et ux. v. RARITAN VALLEY FARMS, Inc. CONGER et al. v. SAME.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

162 A. 737

LARSEN et ux.

v. RARITAN VALLEY FARMS, Inc.

CONGER et al.

v. SAME.

Nos. 4, 5.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

Oct. 17, 1932.

Appeal from Supreme Court.

Separate actions by Albion O. Larsen and wife and by George G. Conger and another against the Raritan Valley Farms, Inc., tried together. From separate judgments in favor of the plaintiffs, the defendant appeals.

Judgment affirmed.

Collins & Corbin, of Jersey City, for appellant.

Edwards, Smith & Dawson, of Jersey City, for respondents.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by HETFIELD, J.

This is an appeal by the defendant below, from two judgments entered against it in the Supreme Court, after a trial in the Middlesex Circuit. It appears that on October 6, 1929, the plaintiff, Albion O. Larsen, accompanied by his wife, Kama Larsen, his daughter, Lillian I. Conger, and a friend, Minnie Warsnip, was driving his automobile in a northerly direction, on Central avenue, in the town of Westfleld. The defendant's truck was being driven in an easterly direction, on Grove street, which crosses Central avenue, and, when the vehicles arrived at the intersection of the two streets, there was a collision between them, which resulted in the occupants of the Larsen car sustaining severe injuries. Two separate suits were instituted, but were tried in the circuit, and argued in this court, together.

The first ground for reversal is predicated in a certain portion of the trial court's charge, wherein the jury was told that: "Now, Mr. Larsen, as he was going north on the right had the right-of-way under the law. The law says that every driver of a vehicle when entering or crossing any intersection shall grant the right-of-way at all times to any vehicle approaching from his right." We find no error in this instruction. The fact that the plaintiff's automobile approached the Intersection from the right of the defendant's truck is not disputed. The Motor Vehicle Act, at the time the accident in question occurred, provided: "2. Excepting as herein otherwise provided, every driver of a vehicle when entering or crossing any intersection shall grant the right-of-way at all times to any vehicle approaching from his right." Article 8, § 2, P. L. 1928, c. 281, p. 733 (Comp. St. Supp. § 179—715 R. (802). It is true that there was conflicting testimony as to which vehicle arrived at the intersection first, but the fact still remains that both the auto and truck were likely to, and did, reach the intersection at approximately the same time, and this court in the case of Mazzei v. Nucar Forwarding Corp., 105 N. J. Law, 218, 143 A. 380, 381, construed the section of the Motor Vehicle Act above quoted to mean "that when two vehicles under existing conditions are likely to reach the intersection at approximately the same moment, the right of way shall be yielded 'at such intersection' to the one approaching from the right." It is argued that this part of the court's charge was erroneous, in that it gave the jury a binding Instruction that there was a violation of the statute, which was a jury question. We think this contention is without merit, as the court, immediately after giving the instruction complained of, used the following language: "It was the duty under ordinary circumstances under equal circumstances of the driver of the truck to grant the right-of-way to Mr. Larsen, but of course that rule of law, as you have heard stated before, is subject to the peculiar circumstances and conditions of each case." It must be presumed that the jury was able to, and did, consider and fairly interpret all parts of the charge relative to the right of way; and, this being so, it must have understood the court to mean that, if the position of the two vehicles was approximately the same as they approached the intersection, Larsen was entitled to cross first.

It is next contended, that the court erred in...