Shay v. Camden & S. Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 17 June 1901 |
| Citation | 49 A. 547,66 N.J.L. 334 |
| Parties | SHAY et ux. v. CAMDEN & S. RY. CO. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Error to supreme court.
Action for injuries by Thomas M. Shay and wife against the Camden & Suburban Railway Company. From a judgment in favor of plaintiffs, defendant brings error. Affirmed.
Edward A. Armstrong, for plaintiff in error.
Howard Carrow, for defendants in error.
1. There was no error in refusing to nonsuit the plaintiff, for there was proof from which the jury might infer the negligence of the motorman who was running the car in which Mrs. Shay was a passenger.
2. The collision of the car with the wagon undoubtedly occasioned some physical injury to Mrs. Shay. Such injury would justify an award of damages, and, if it produced fright or other mental disturbance, damages therefor might be included. Traction Co. v. Lambertson, 59 N. J. Law, 297, 30 Atl. 100; Id., GO N. J. Law, 457, 38 Atl. 684.
3. Defendant was a carrier of passengers, and had accepted Mrs. Shay as a passenger. It owed her a duty to carry her safely. Proof of the happening of a collision between the car in which she was carried and a vehicle in the public streets—an accident which, in the ordinary course of events, would not have happened if the proper care had been used by the motorman—raised an implication of negligence on the part of the company. It was for the company to establish that the motorman was not in fact negligent. The request to charge that the plaintiff must establish negligence by preponderance of evidence was improper, and there was no error of the court in refusing to thus charge. Traction Co. v. Demarest, 62 N. J. Law, 755, 42 Atl. 729.
4. Considering the duty of the defendant to Mrs. Shay, arising from the relation between the carrier and the passenger, the charge that the duty of the company in running the cars required a very considerable degree of care was not an overstatement of the company's duty. The company had no reason to complain of this definition of its duty.
5. The charge on the subject of damages was in all respects correct, and the request was substantially complied with. No error being found, the judgment will be affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Zichler v. St. Louis Public Service Co.
...W.Va. 106, 95 S.E. 808; Railroad Co. v. Kaskell, 78 Md. 517, 28 A. 410; North Jersey St. Ry. Co. v. Purdy, 142 F. 955; Shay v. Railroad Co., 66 N. J. L. 334, 49 A. 547. (2) There was no error in submitting the case on plaintiff's Instruction 1 alone, on the measure of damages. (a) No except......
-
Chawkley v. Wabash Railway Co.
... ... 400; Mollman v. Light Co., ... 227 S.W. 264; Porter v. Railroad, 73 N. J. L. 405; ... Conley v. Drug Co., 218 Mass. 238; Shay v ... Railway, 66 N. J. L. 334. (6) The doctrine of ... "imputed negligence" has long since been uprooted ... and rejected in this State, and it ... ...
-
McCardle v. George B. Peck Dry Goods Company
...Mass. 568; Driscoll v. Gaffey, 207 Mass. 102; Conley v. United Drug Co., 218 Mass, 238; Traction Co. v. Lambertson, 36 A. 100; Shay v. Railroad, 66 N. J. L. 334; Kennell v. Gershonovitz, 84 N. J. L. 577; v. Railroad, 73 N. J. L. 405; Folk v. Railroad, 99 S.C. 284; Cohn v. Realty Co., 148 N.......
-
Carter v. Public Service Coordinated Transport, A--459
...injuries to the unborn child. Buchanan v. West Jersey R. Co., 52 N.J.L. 265, 19 A. 254 (Sup.Ct.1890); Shay v. Camden & Suburban Ry. Co., 66 N.J.L. 334, 49 A. 547 (E. & A.1901); 2 Harper and James, Law of Torts, § 18.4, p. 1032 (1956); Annotations 145 A.L.R. 1104, 1109 (1943). The jury allow......