Prendergast v. Jacobs

• Decision Date: 27 April 1933
• Docket Number: No. 81.,81.
• Citation: 166 A. 94
• Parties: PRENDERGAST et al. v. JACOBS et al.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

166 A. 94

PRENDERGAST et al.

v. JACOBS et al.

No. 81.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

April 27, 1933.

Syllabus by the Court.

In an action based upon the negligent operation of an automobile driven by a servant of the owner or of a master to whose use the vehicle has been put by the owner, such action being against both the servant and his master and where the jury finds no cause of action as to the servant, but finds against the master, a judgment against the latter is without legal support and must be reversed. Vaniewsky v. Demarest Brothers Co., 106 N. J. Law, 34, 148 A. 17; Hummers v. Public Service Electric & Gas Company, 106 N. J. Law, 196, 156 A. 423, affirming, 151 A. 383, 8 N. J. Misc. 689. Dunbaden v. Castles Ice Cream Co., 103 N. J. Law, 427, 135 A. 886, being distinguishable.

Appeal from Supreme Court.

Action by John Prendergast, by next friend, and others against Charles Jacobs and others. From an adverse judgment, the named defendant appeals.

Reversed.

Saul Mendelson, of Jersey City, for appellant.

CAMPBELL, Chancellor.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court in a cause tried at the Hudson Circuit. The action was to recover damages for personal injuries to the infant plaintiff, John Prendergast, and the loss and expenses resulting therefrom to his father, the other plaintiff.

The injuries received by the boy resulted from the alleged negligent operation of an automobile on a public highway in Jersey City.

The vehicle was owned by the defendant Sidney L. Jacobs, but appears to have been loaned, or put to the use of, his father, Charles Jacobs, another of the defendants and the appellant here, and at the time of the happening was being operated by the chauffeur of the appellant, and occupied by the appellant, who was sitting in the front seat, alongside of the chauffeur, and further occupied by the defendant Sidney L. Jacobs, who was occupying the rear seat with a young boy, his nephew.

As a result of the trial of the cause, the jury found in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendant Charles Jacobs and against the plaintiffs and in favor of the defendant Sidney L. Jacobs, the owner of the car, and in favor of the defendant Frederick Glesenhaus, the driver and servant of the defendant Charles Jacobs, for no cause of action.

There is no fact or proof of any character of the case warranting a verdict and judgment against the appellant except from the principle of respondeat superior. The sole...