Seibert v. A. Goldstein Co.

• Decision Date: 20 November 1923
• Docket Number: No. 97.,97.
• Citation: 122 A. 821
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
• Parties: SEIBERT v. A. GOLDSTEIN CO.

122 A. 821

SEIBERT

v. A. GOLDSTEIN CO.

No. 97.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

Nov. 20, 1923.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Hudson County.

Action by William A. Seibert against the A. Goldstein Company and the Presto-Lite Company, Inc. Judgment for plaintiff, and first named defendant appeals. Affirmed.

McDermott, Enright & Carpenter, of Jersey City, for appellant.

I. Faerber Goldenhorn and Saul Nemser, both of Jersey City, for respondent.

MINTURN, J. The plaintiff left Newark on the evening of November 27, 1922, and directed his motor truck along the Lincoln Highway, to reach Jersey City, in the face of a violent snow storm. He pictures the situation thus:

"The snow was simply flying right in. I pulled my cap over my eyes as much as I dared, so I could see under the cap, on account of the sleet, and the snow cutting; and the wind shield, I was wiping that off every five minutes; but the minute I wiped it off the snow flied right on to it again; so the best way 1 used in my precaution was to lean from the side to have as much clear vision as I could of the road; that is why I kept to the center of the road. While leaning out over the side to see in front of me—without seeing anything in front of me; it was very dark—all of a sudden a large object heaved in front of me, and what was it but this big truck. Before I knew it my truck, having only a frail cast-iron radiator, ran into this big Mack truck of the Goldstein Wholesale Grocery Company."

For the resulting damages to his truck and to himself, personally, the plaintiff brought this suit, and obtained a verdict at the circuit, and from that judgment this appeal was taken. The defendant's truck at the time of the collision was obstructed for about five minutes in its passage by a truck of the Presto-Lite Company, which had become helpless on the road; and that company was also made a defendant in this suit, but as to it the jury found a verdict of no cause of action.

The defense was contributory negligence and the absence of negligence upon the part of defendant, which inferences it was contended were sufficiently manifest to warrant the direction of a verdict for the defendant. Both motions were denied, and are again urged here. The Lincoln Highway is one of the most traveled arteries of commerce in the metropolitan environment, and extends its ramifications throughout the state.

Upon this occasion the arc lamps upon the highway were covered with the drifting snow, so that they emitted little light to guide the driver, or to disclose obstructions upon the highway. Upon this state of facts, the trial court properly declined to nonsuit, or to direct a verdict, since the existence of negligence manifestly was a jury question, for, as we observed in Napodensky v. West Jersey & S. R. Co., 85 N. J. Law, 338, 88 Atl. 1033, upon a similar motion, in an exigency just as critical as that here presented—

"Negligence is not an ex cathedra pronouncement with which an act may be arbitrarily branded in the abstract as the judicial eye may conceive it. It presents a concrete proposition for a jury to solve, where the facts vary, as narrated by opposing witnesses, and from which different minds may conjecture differently, as they may view the conduct of a man in a difficult or trying situation, harassed and confused in the compass of seconds, with conflicting and contending views...