Rourke v. Pub. Serv. Coordinated Transp..

• Citation: 66 A.2d 341
• Decision Date: 02 June 1949
• Docket Number: No. A-289.,A-289.
• Parties: ROURKE v. PUBLIC SERVICE COORDINATED TRANSPORT.
• Court: Superior Court of New Jersey

66 A.2d 341

ROURKE

v.PUBLIC SERVICE COORDINATED TRANSPORT.

No. A-289.

Superior Court of New JerseyAppellate Division, Part B.

Argued May 16, 1949.

Decided June 2, 1949.

Appeal from Middlesex County Court.

Action by Thomas J. Rourke against Public Service Coordinated Transport for injuries sustained by plaintiff when struck by automobile while transferring from one bus owned and operated by defendant to another bus also owned and operated by defendant. From judgment for plaintiff, the defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Before McGEEHAN, Senior Judge, and DONGES and COLIE, JJ.

Carl T. Freggens, Newark, argued the cause for appellant.

Francis M. Seaman, Perth Amboy, argued the cause for respondent.

The opinion of the court was delivered by COLIE, Judge.

On the evening of January 21, 1947, plaintiff, Thomas J. Rourke, was a passenger on a bus owned and operated by the defendant, Public Service Coordinated Transport, en route from Elizabeth to Perth Amboy. The plaintiff's destination was the Barber Asphalt Corporation, a stop commonly known as Barber. He had never previously been to Barber and asked to be let off there. Inadvertently he was carried past his destination and when he discovered that fact and advised the driver, the latter stopped the bus and plaintiff crossed the street and boarded another Public Service bus going in the opposite, or northerly, direction, and told the operator of the second bus that he had been driven past his destination. The operator of the latter bus said that he would let him out at Barber. Once again he was carried past his destination and when the second bus driver learned of it, he said: ‘I will stop a bus coming down the other way and tell him to let you off there.’ The next south bound bus stopped on signal from the north bound bus and the two stopped approximately opposite each other. After some conversation between the operators, the driver of the bus in which the plaintiff was riding told him to descend, go around the front of the bus and get on the south bound bus. As plaintiff walked around the front of the north bound bus, he looked to his right, or to the north, and saw no traffic approaching. He then looked to the south and could see about 100 feet. After taking several steps to cross the street, he made a further observation at a point where he could see from 300 to 400 feet and observed, for the first time, an automobile about 150 feet away, going about 35 or 40 miles per hour. He was then some...