Robinson v. Mutnick

• Decision Date: 24 November 1925
• Docket Number: No. 19.,19.
• Citation: 131 A. 67
• Parties: ROBINSON v. MUTNICK et ux.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

131 A. 67

ROBINSON

v. MUTNICK et ux.

No. 19.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Nov. 24, 1925.

Action by Harry Robinson against Joseph J. Mutnick, Jr., and wife. Judgment for plaintiff. On defendants' rule to show cause. Rule made absolute.

Argued January term, 1925, before GUMMERE, C. J., and PARKER and KATZENBACH, JJ.

William E. Holmwood, of Newark, for the rule.

Eiml J. Hoos and William Newcorn, both of Plainfield, opposed.

GUMMERE, C. J. This action was brought by the plaintiff to recover compensation for personal injuries received by him in a collision which occurred at the corner of Second and Liberty streets, in the city of Plainfield, between a bicycle upon which he was riding and an automobile which was being driven by Mrs. Mutnick and owned by her husband. The trial resulted in a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for the sum of $2,500.

The plaintiff was riding his bicycle on Second street, traveling west, and when he reached the corner of Liberty street he turned south. The defendant Mrs. Mutnick was driving her husband's car northward on Liberty street. An overhead railroad bridge crosses Liberty street, about 10 feet south of the intersection of the two streets, and is supported by stone abutments and steel pillars at the curbs of the street. The collision occurred just as the plaintiff was completing his turn into Liberty street, and as the defendants' car was emerging from under the railroad bridge. The plaintiff contended that the accident resulted solely from the negligence of Mrs. Mutnick in the driving of the car. The defendants, on the other hand, asserted that it was due solely to the reckless riding of the plaintiff.

The trial court, in the charge to the jury, after dealing with the question of the alleged contributory negligence of the plaintiff, instructed them with relation to the obligation resting upon Mrs. Mutnick as she approached the intersection of the two streets; and the principal grounds upon which the defendants seek to have this rule made absolute are directed at alleged errors in law committed by the trial court in that part of its charge dealing with the scope of that obligation. The alleged erroneous instructions were contained in two requests to charge, which were submitted by counsel for the plaintiff, and adopted by the trial court. The requests were as follows:

(1) "It is the duty of a driver of a motor vehicle to have the same at all times, while it is being operated, under such control that its operation will not become dangerous or be operated in such a manner as to do injury to other users of the highway."

(2) "It is the duty of the driver of a motor vehicle to stop if such a driver comes to a position on the roadway where it is dangerous to others to proceed on account of obstruction, or other conditions in the roadway, making it...