Shuster v. McDermit
| Decision Date | 06 February 1928 |
| Citation | 140 A. 421 |
| Parties | SHUSTER v. McDERMIT et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Appeal from Supreme Court.
Action by William Sinister against Mathew P. A. McDermit and another. Judgment for plaintiff, after dismissal as to unnamed defendant, and named defendant appeals. Reversed.
Wight, Wight & Golenbock, of Perthamboy, for appellant.
Welcome W. Bender, of Elizabeth, for respondent.
This action was brought in the Supreme Court to recover compensation for personal injuries received by the plaintiff in a collision between an automobile truck which he was driving and an automobile belonging to the fire department of the city of Newark and appropriated by it to the use of Mathew McDermit, deputy fire chief, and being driven by one McCormick, a member of the department, and assigned by it to that duty. The defendants were McDermit and McCormick, and they were on their way to a fire when the collision occurred. The plaintiff's claim was that the accident was the result of driving at an excessive rate of speed by the latter at an intersecting street corner in Newark, and that McDermit was responsible, as well as McCormick, because the latter was acting as the agent of the former when the collision occurred. The trial resulted in a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and against McDermit (the plaintiff having discontinued as against McCormick at the close of the testimony), and McDermit has appealed from the judgment entered on that verdict.
The principal ground upon which we are asked to reverse the judgment under review is that, on the facts proved, McDermit. could not be held responsible for the careless driving of McCormick; that there was nothing indicating carelessness on his part contributing to the accident; and that therefore it was error for the trial court to refuse to direct a verdict in his favor when requested to do so at the close of the case.
The two defendants were engaged in a common employment, serving the same master, viz., the fire department of the city of Newark. They were fellow servants, and the fact that one of them held a superior position did not change this status. McLaughlin v. Camden Iron Works, 60 N. J. Law, 557, 38 A. 677; Olsen v. Nixon, 61 N. J. Law, 671, 673, 40 A. 694. As a consequence of this relationship, each was responsible for the results of his own negligence, but not for those arising solely out of the negligence of the other.
The only testimony produced indicating that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Parton v. Weilnau
...or to know that the driver was operating * * * the fire truck 'without due regard for the safety of others' * * *.' In Shuster v. McDermit, 104 N.J.L. 58, 140 A. 421, affirming a judgment on a directed verdict in an action to recover damages from a deputy fire chief for negligence of the dr......
-
Devone v. Newark Tidewater Terminal
...legally or logically supported upon no other recognized conception.' Consistent with this thesis is the refusal in Shuster v. McDermit, 104 N.J.L. 58, 140 A. 421 (E. & A.1928) to charge a deputy fire chief with the negligence of his subordinate driver. Although a right to control undoubtedl......
-
Clough v. Schwartz
...instructed that any negligence of Herbert, the fireman driving the fire truck, was not imputable to the plaintiff. Shuster v. McDermit, 104 N.J.Law 58, 140 A. 421. The relationship of the driver and the plaintiff was that of fellow servants or coemployees in the Manchester Fire Department. ......
- State Bd. of Med. Examiners v. Walker