Podolsky v. Sautter
| Decision Date | 17 May 1926 |
| Docket Number | No. 85.,85. |
| Citation | 133 A. 199 |
| Parties | PODOLSKY et al. v. SAUTTER. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Appeal from Supreme Court.
Action by Rose Podolsky and another against Frank W. Sautter. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Carr & Carroll, of Camden, for appellant.
Burton A. Gaskill, of Atlantic City, for respondents.
This is the appeal of the defendant below from a judgment entered upon the verdict of a jury in favor of the plaintiffs in an action brought to recover for personal injuries sustained in an automobile collision.
The evidence at the trial tended to show the following matters of fact: The plaintiffs below were passengers in an automobile being driven along a public highway on a very dark night. Their driver was proceeding on his right side of the highway at a speed of from 12 to 20 miles an hour with proper lights on his car. The paved highway at the point where the collison occurred was 20 feet in width. Suddenly the lights on the car in which plaintiffs were riding disclosed about 25 feet ahead of the driver the wheels of a truck standing on the side of the roadway. He immediately applied his brakes and attempted, but without success, to avoid striking this object. The right side of the automobile in which plaintiffs were riding struck what proved to be the left side of defendant's truck which was standing on the right side of the road, with a portion of the body extending over the paved surface. The truck had no rear light to apprise the approaching driver of its presence. In the collision plaintiffs were injured.
At the close of the case the defendant moved for a direction of a verdict in his favor solely on the ground that the absence of a light on the truck was not the proximate cause of the resulting accident, which motion was denied by the court, and defendant below bases his appeal for a reversal of the judgment, entered upon the verdict, solely on the refusal of the court to direct a verdict in his favor for that reason. We perceive no reason for disturbing the judgment.
The argument of the defendant that the admitted negligence of the defendant was not the proximate cause of the accident is based entirely on the statement, made on cross-examination, by the driver of the car in which plaintiffs were riding, that he saw the object about 25 feet away and that he could stop his car within "around 6 feet" when going 20 miles an hour. From this, defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Buffington v. Buffington
-
Somerset Crushed Stone, Inc. v. Explosives Sales Co. of N. J.
...men ought not to differ about them. Smith v. Public Service Corporation, 78 N.J.L. 478, 75 A. 937 (E. & A.1910); Podolsky v. Sautter, 102 N.J.L. 598, 133 A. 199 (E. & A.1926); Parave v. Public Service Interstate, etc., Co., 109 N.J.L. 155, 160 A. 375 (E. & A.1932); Truck v. Kaywal Realty Co......
-
Mazzietelle v. Belleville Nutley Buick Co.
...was unconnected. Suburban Electric Co. v. Nugent, 58 N.J.L. 658, 34 A. 1069, 32 L.R.A. 700 (E. & A.1896); Podolsky v. Sautter, 102 N.J.L. 598, 600, 133 A. 199 (E. & A.1926); 22 Am.Jur., Fires, § 87, p. 653; Restatement, Torts, § 430, p. 1156, and see 1948 Supp., p. The rules with regard to ......
-
Belperche v. Erie R. Co.
...the jury, and in this there was no error. Parave v. Public Service Interstate, etc., 109 N. J. Law, 155, 160 A. 375; Podolsky v. Sautter, 102 N. J. Law, 598, 133 A. 199. It will be noted here that the appellants absolve plaintiff's intestate from contributory negligence, saying: "The decede......