Newman v. Katz
| Decision Date | 05 January 1934 |
| Docket Number | No. 32.,32. |
| Parties | NEWMAN v. KATZ. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. In a personal injury action, the uncontradicted evidence was that the defendant was driving 8 or 9 miles an hour in a southerly direction on Baldwin avenue 2 or 3 feet from the curb; that, as his automobile truck approached the northwest corner of the intersection of Pavonia avenue, where the traffic was controlled by a light, the green or "go" light favored him and remained favorable to him, and the red or "stop" light was, and remained, against pedestrians crossing Baldwin avenue; that neither the plaintiff nor any other pedestrian was on the roadway or on the crosswalk as defendant reached the intersection; that, as the front part of his truck was crossing the crosswalk, the plaintiff, when out of the line of defendant's vision, stepped off of the curb and took three steps along the crossing and walked into the side of defendant's truck, about midway of the right-hand side, and was "spun around" and injured. Held, that a verdict was properly directed for the defendant upon the ground that there was no evidence of negligence of the defendant.
2. A pedestrian crossing a street must use such precautions and care for his safety as a reasonably prudent person would use in like or similar circumstances.
3. In a personal injury action, the evidence showed conclusively that, as the front part of the automobile truck driven by the defendant was passing the crosswalk at a street intersection, the plaintiff, when out of the line of defendant's vision, stepped off of the curb, took three steps along the crosswalk, and walked into the side of the truck about midway of the right-hand side, and was "spun around" and injured; that at the time the traffic control light was against the plaintiff and favored a continuous operation of defendant's truck across the intersection; that there were no parked cars on the block and no intervening obstruction to plaintiff's vision, and she must have seen, if she had looked, the defendant's automobile truck, both when it was approaching and when it was in front of her. Held, that a verdict was properly directed for the defendant upon the ground that plaintiff's injury resulted from her failure to exercise reasonable care for her safety.
Appeal from Supreme Court.
Action by Bertha G. M. Newman against Samuel Katz. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.
Edwards, Smith & Dawson, of Jersey City (Raymond Dawson, of Jersey City, of counsel), for respondent
This appeal brings up for review a judgment entered upon a directed verdict in favor of the defendant in an action by the plaintiff to recover for injury sustained by her, in a collision with defendant's automobile truck, driven by defendant, at 8 a. m., on September 25, 1929, shortly after she had stepped from the curb at the northwest corner of Pavonia and Baldwin avenues, Jersey City, apparently for the purpose of crossing Baldwin avenue.
The legal propriety of the direction of the verdict for defendant is the only question raised or argued on this, the plaintiff's, appeal.
We think that the verdict was properly directed for two reasons now to be stated.
We think that it was properly directed upon the ground that there was no evidence showing or fairly tending to show any wrongful act, or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mobile City Lines, Inc. v. Proctor
...negligently failed to keep a lookout, whereas in the instant case we think the evidence does permit such an inference. In Newman v. Katz, 112 N.J.L. 49, 169 A. 643, as defendant's truck was crossing the crosswalk, plaintiff, when out of the line of defendant's vision, stepped off curb, took......