Renner v. Martin
| Decision Date | 31 January 1936 |
| Docket Number | No. 2.,2. |
| Citation | 183 A. 185 |
| Parties | RENNER v. MARTIN et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Appeal from Supreme Court.
Action by John S. Renner against Howard Martin and another. From an adverse judgment, the defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
Q. A. Ricciardelli and Harry Tartalsky, both of Jersey City, for appellants.
This is an appeal by the defendants from a judgment for $1,588.02 entered against them in the New Jersey Supreme Court pursuant to a jury verdict in the Essex circuit. The complaint alleged personal and property damage caused by the negligent operation of an automobile driven by Simpson and owned by Martin.
Appellants file ten grounds of appeal, only two of which are argued. Points not argued are abandoned. Cleaves v. Yeskel, 104 N.J.Law, 497, 141 A. 814.
The first point presented on appellants' brief is that the trial court erred in not charging the jury upon the alleged contributory negligence of the plaintiff in operating a motorcycle on a public highway without a license. The judge did charge the fundamental law of the case, including, in appropriate language, that bearing upon contributory negligence. He did not charge specifically upon the effect of driving with out a license, and was not obliged to do so. There was no request so to charge, and the question, therefore, is not properly before us. Malinowski v. Phillips, 104 N.J. Law, 130, 138 A. 896.
It is said, secondly, that the plaintiff, on the date of the accident, was unlawfully operating a motorcycle on a public highway and was therefore a trespasser. But this presents no judicial action for review. Ratz v. Hillside Bus Owners' Ass'n, 103 N.J.Law, 502, 135 A. 884. The mere statement of a proposition of law or of fact is of no value as a ground of appeal. Abbe v. Erie R. Co, 97 N.J.Law, 212, 116 A. 778. If it be the intention to present for review under this heading the court's refusal to nonsuit upon this stated ground, we call attention to the rule, well established in this state, that where one, as in the act of driving an automobile in violation of the statute without registration or driver's license, is unlawfully traveling on a highway and is injured by another, he may recover for his injuries, unless his violation of the law contributed to the accident or is the proximate cause; and that the question of the causal connection between the violation of the statute and the accident is usually for the jury. Muller v. West Jersey & Seashore R. Co, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Burke v. Auto Mart, Inc.
...188, 189, 122 A. 693 (E. & A. 1923); Ross v. Pennsylvania R.R. Co., 106 N.J.L. 536, 148 A. 741 (E. & A. 1930); Renner v. Martin, 116 N.J.L. 240, 183 A. 185 (E. & A. 1936). Compare the same approach in the analogous situation of violation of statutory regulations concerning the size of a veh......
-
Mundy v. Pirie-Slaughter Motor Co.
...A. 754; Muller v. West Jersey & S. R. Co., 99 N.J.L. 186, 122 A. 693; Hala v. Worthington, 130 N.J.L. 162, 31 A.2d 844; Renner v. Martin, 116 N.J.L. 240, 183 A. 185; Opple v. Ray, 208 Ind. 450, 195 N.E. 81. Other cases have held that knowledge that the driver does not have a license is not ......
-
Moich v. Passaic Terminal & Transp. Co.
...110 N.J.L. 111, 115, 164 A. 308 (E. & A. 1933), and the question of a causal connection is usually for the jury. Renner v. Martin, 116 N.J.L. 240, 241, 183 A. 185 (E. & A. 1936). In general, upon common law principles the plaintiff in a negligence action obtains the benefit of the statute i......
-
Melone v. Jersey Cent. Power & Light Co.
...Act was not in itself negligence. It is a factor to be taken into consideration, an incident of negligence. Renner v. Martin, 116 N.J.L. 240, 241, 183 A. 185 (E. & A.1936). Cf. Seibert v. Goldstein Co., 99 N.J.L. 200, 201--204, 122 A. 821 (E. & A.1923). The violation of a statute by others ......