Pub. Serv. Ry. Co. v. Matteucci
| Decision Date | 15 October 1928 |
| Parties | PUBLIC SERVICE RY. CO. v. MATTEUCCI. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Appeal from Supreme Court.
Action by the Public Service Railway Company against Joseph Matteucci. Judgment for plaintiff (140 A. 442), and defendant appeals. Reversed.
John E. Toolan, of Perth Amboy, for appellant.
Henry H. Fryling, of Newark, for respondent.
The situation which gave rise to the present litigation was this: One Julia Alexander recovered a verdict of $35,000 against both of the parties to this suit for physical injuries received by her resulting from the negligence of an employe of the Public Service Company in the operation of a trolley car and the negligence of a servant of Matteucci in the operation of a certain jitney bus. An execution was issued on the judgment entered upon this verdict, and thereupon Matteucci paid the plaintiff in that suit the sum of $10,000 on account of said judgment, and the public service company paid the remaining part thereof, to wit, $25,000.
The present suit is based upon the theory that the public service company has a legal right to contribution from Matteucci to the extent of one-half of the excess paid by it to Julia Alexander, amounting to $7,500; the total excess being $15,000. The case was tried by the court at the Essex circuit without a jury, and a judgment was rendered in favor of the public service company against Matteucci for the amount of the contribution claimed, the court (140 A. 442) holding that, unless the accident to the Alexander woman was the result of the willful conduct of the employes of the two defendants in that suit, the general rule that no right of contribution exists as between joint tort-feasors had no application; in other words, that, where the wrong is the result of mere negligence in the carrying on of some lawful transaction, the party paying the judgment is entitled to have contribution from the other party who is jointly liable for the injury inflicted upon the person who brought suit against them.
Although the exception to the general rule relating to the right of contribution, as declared by the trial court, has been held to exist by a number of the courts of our sister states, and by some of the decisions of the federal courts, we are not impressed with its soundness. A man who drives a vehicle on a public highway in negligent disregard of the rights of other users of such highway is guilty of an unlawful act, and, if the direct...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Judson v. Peoples Bank & Trust Co. of Westfield
...was intentional, or unintentional, and merely negligent. Newman v. Fowler, 37 N.J.L. 89 (Sup.Ct.1874); Public Service Railway Co. v. Matteucci, 105 N.J.L. 114, 143 A. 221 (E. & A.1928); Malinauskas v. Public Service Interstate Transp. Co., 6 N.J. 269, 274, 78 A.2d 268 The doctrine came unde......
-
Kennedy v. Camp
...tortfeasors they could not claim contribution Inter se. Newman v. Fowler, 37 N.J.L. 89 (Sup.Ct.1874); Public Service Ry. Co. v. Matteucci, 105 N.J.L. 114, 143 A. 221 (E. & A. 1928); Malinauskas v. Public Service Interstate Transp. Co., 6 N.J. 269, 274, 78 A.2d 268 (1951). Cf. Douglas v. She......
-
Cent. R. Co. of N.J. v. Martin
...taxing power." In our state, Chief Justice Gummere, for the Court of Errors and Appeals, in the case of Public Service R. Co. v. Matteucci, 105 N. J. Law, 114, 116, 143 A. 221, 222, said: "* * * Assuming that this is so [contention that the statement quoted was obiter], the soundness of the......
-
Sattelberger v. Telep
...v. Nixan, 8 T.R. 186, 101 Eng.Repr. 1337 (1789); Newman v. Fowler, 37 N.J.L. 89 (Sup.Ct.1874); Public Service Railway Co. v. Matteucci, 105 N.J.L. 114, 143 A. 221 (E. & A. 1928); Manowitz v. Kanov, 107 N.J.L. 523, 154 A. 326, 75 A.L.R. 1464 (E. & A.1931). Under the statute, contribution is ......