Meelhein v. Pub. Serv. Coordinated Transp.
| Decision Date | 16 September 1938 |
| Docket Number | No. 42.,42. |
| Citation | 121 N.J.L. 163,1 A.2d 418 |
| Parties | MEELHEIN et al. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COORDINATED TRANSPORT et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Appeal from Supreme Court.
Action by Cora Meelhein and another against the Public Service Coordinated Transport and another for injuries sustained by named plaintiff while alighting from a motorbus. From a judgment of nonsuit, plaintiffs appeal.
Affirmed.
Huyler E. Romond, of Perth Amboy, for appellants.
Henry H. Fryling, of Newark (William F. Vosseller, of Newark, of counsel), for respondents.
This cause was tried before the Middlesex Circuit of the Supreme Court, and at the close of the plaintiffs' case a nonsuit was entered on motion of the defendant, and the correctness of said ruling is the subject of this appeal.
The plaintiffs, at the trial below, had the burden of the affirmative (Bien v. Unger et al., 64 N.J.L. 596, 46 A. 593; McGilvery v. Newark Electric Light & Power Co., 63 N.J.L. 591, 44 A. 637), and they had to establish facts from which the alleged negligence of the defendant may be reasonably inferred. Alvina v. Public Service Railway Co., 97 N.J.L. 526, 117 A. 709. They attempted to support the burden by proving that the driver of the defendant's motor bus stopped said bus on Hall Avenue, that is, on a steep grade, and at a distance of twelve to twenty inches from the curbing. Mr. Meelhein alighted first and safely, and Mrs. Meelhein, who was pregnant at the time, and had been so for seven and one half months, fell to the street, while alighting, and sustained injuries.
The defendant was under the duty of using "a high degree of care" for the safety of its passengers (Whalan v. Consolidated Traction Co., 61 N.J.L. 606, 40 A. 645, 41 L.R.A. 836, 68 Am.St.Rep. 723; Spalt v. Eaton, 118 N.J.L. 327, 330, 192 A. 576; and Wall v. G. R. Wood, Inc., 119 N.J.L. 442, 197 A. 41), and of providing a reasonably safe place for them to alight. Pabst et al., v. Public Service Railway Co., 104 N.J.L. 537, 141 A. 773.
It is, in addition to the foregoing, contended by the plaintiffs that the defendant owed a greater degree of care to Mrs. Meelhein than the ordinary person, because she was" under a physical handicap, but an examination of the testimony fails to disclose knowledge in the defendant of said physical handicap. At its best, the evidence in this regard is a statement at the trial, of pregnancy at the time of accident, without showing either actual knowledge in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. Portland Traction Co.
...safely and went on their way except the plaintiff's wife. In the Cleveland case no recovery was allowed. Meelhein v. Public Service Coordinated Transport, 121 N.J.L. 163, 1 A.2d 418, '* * * Therefore, taking as true the stopping of a common carrier's motor bus on a steep grade, and from twe......
-
Carter v. Public Service Coordinated Transport, A--459
...calculated to provide a reasonably safe means for the plaintiff to ascend the steps of the bus. In Meelhein v. Public Service Co-ordinated Transport., 121 N.J.L. 163, 1 A.2d 418 (E. & A.1938), the evidence disclosed plaintiff's pregnancy at the time of the accident, but the court found ther......
-
Hole v. Womack
...Co., 135 N.J.L. 280, 51 A.2d 1; Cleveland v. Danville Traction & Power Co., 179 Va. 256, 18 S.E.2d 913; Meelhein v. Public Service Coordinated Transport, 121 N.J.L. 163, 1 A.2d 418. Also, that the test, as to the safety of the place where the passenger is allowed to disembark, is whether or......
-
Weidenmueller v. Pub. Serv. Interstate Transp. Co.
...127 N.J.L. 226, 21 A.2d 736. In this respect, the instant case differs from that line of cases of which Meelhein v. Public Service Co-Ordinated Transport, 121 N.J.L. 163, 1 A.2d 418, is typical. See Smith v. Public Service Co-Ordinated Transport, 123 N.J.L. 226, 8 A.2d 575. In those cases t......