Seipel v. Sevek
| Decision Date | 01 June 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. A--115,A--115 |
| Citation | 29 N.J. 593,152 A.2d 47 |
| Parties | Charles SEIPEL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles SEVEK and Melba Silverman, Defendants-Respondents, and Roland K. Then, Herbert M. Then, Cirioco Scoppettuolo and Pontiac Construction Company, a corporation of New Jersey, Defendants. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Edward M. Gurry, Newark, for plaintiff-appellant (Rizzolo & Montalbano, Newark, attorneys).
Merritt Lane, Jr., Newark, for defendants-respondents .
In this automobile negligence action, the Appellate Division reversed plaintiff's personal injury and property damage judgments against the defendants. The reversal was predicated upon a declaration that the plaintiff had been guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. 53 N.J.Super. 151, 146 A.2d 705 (App.Div.1958). We granted certification. 29 N.J. 136, 148 A.2d 650 (1959).
On January 4, 1956, at about 7:50 a.m., plaintiff, accompanied by two fellow employees, was driving his car west on Bloomfield Avenue in Montville Township, New Jersey. The roadway at the place of accident consists of two 10-foot-wide traffic lanes on each side of a center grass plot 16 feet in width. There is a 12-foot shoulder on the north side and one of 2 feet on the south side. On the morning in question the highway was icy and the area was foggy. Visibility was limited.
Just prior to the first collision Seipel was driving, at 10 to 15 miles per hour with his parking lights on, in the left westbound lane because he intended to turn left at the Route 46 interchange which was a short distance away. The car he was following suddenly swerved and slowed down, its brake lights showing. Seipel applied his brakes and lessened his speed. Before his car came to a halt, it was struck in the rear by the automobile of Roland Then. In spite of this impact, which increased his forward acceleration to some extent, he was able to bring his car to a stop without skidding and without any contact with the vehicle ahead of him. It came to rest still in the left lane and close to the center grass plot. Seipel got out immediately, leaving the lights on and motor running, and the car where it was standing. His purpose was to look for the automobile which had struck his vehicle (it not being visible in his rear view mirror nor to his right) to talk to the driver. As he was in the act of alighting, he noticed Vuolo, one of his passengers, who had been sitting beside him in the right front seat, move over toward the driver's position. Vuolo testified that his purpose was to move the car off the highway. He assumed the driver's place and as he reached for the door in order to close it, the vehicle was struck again in the rear.
On leaving his car, plaintiff noticed that Then had backed his vehicle onto the north shoulder about 30 feet away. As he approached Then, he inquired about his brakes and lights, but before Then had a chance to reply, Seipel heard another crash. This mishap, of course, was the one Vuolo spoke of, and coincidentally the driver of the second accident car was Herbert Then, a brother of Roland. Plaintiff's automobile was projected forward about 15 feet and its position reversed so that it faced in an easterly direction but was still on the roadway. On this happening, Vuolo gave up his effort to move the Seipel car. He abandoned it there. Plaintiff looked once to the east, in which direction he said he could see two or three car lengths, although further evidence indicated the visibility was somewhat greater, and ran to the place where the vehicles had come to rest. The reason was to ascertain if any one was hurt and to provide assistance. He climbed over the rear bumper of his car, which was inches away from Herbert Then's front bumper. While doing so, in looking through the windshield, he could see no one at the wheel of Then's vehicle. He reached and started to open the door to see what had happened to the driver, when a warning call rang out. At this, he backed away and had run six to ten feet in a westerly direction when he was propelled into the air, across the grass plot to the eastbound roadway. He had been struck by his own car which was hit by the truck of defendant Silverman, being driven by the defendant Sevek, which in turn had been struck by another truck owned by defendant Pontiac Construction Company...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
National Premium Budget Plan Corp. v. National Fire Ins. Co. of Hartford, L--11133
...63 N.J.Super. 129, 164 A.2d 188 (App.Div.1960); Seipel v. Sevek, 53 N.J.Super. 151, 146 A.2d 705 (App.Div.1958) reversed on other grounds 29 N.J. 593, 152 A.2d 47 (1959). In these cases the asserted intervening causes were noncriminal. Foreseeability may be based upon the knowledge of simil......
-
Trent v. Atlantic City Electric Co.
...question become one of law for decisive action by the court. Battaglia v. Norton, 1954, 16 N.J. 171, 179, 108 A.2d 1; Seipel v. Sevek, 1959, 29 N.J. 593, 152 A.2d 47." While we think that under the facts of this case the jury could reasonably have found negligence on the part of Trent, on t......
-
J. L. Querner Truck Lines, Inc. v. Safeway Truck Lines, Inc.
...inference that would be drawn by all reasonable men. * * *' Berger v. Shapiro, 30 N.J. 89, 102, 152 A.2d 20, 27 (1959); Seipel v. Sevek, 29 N.J. 593, 152 A.2d 47 (1959). If Lash's testimony were believed, and we must accept it as true on this appeal, he was travelling at a slow rate of spee......
-
Saporito v. Holland-America Lines
...question become one of law for decisive action by the court. Battaglia v. Norton, 1954, 16 N.J. 171, 179, 108 A.2d 1; Seipel v. Sevek, 1959, 29 N.J. 593, 152 A.2d 47. In a situation somewhat similar to this one the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court said in Coffey v. Middle......