Skiba v. Hmieleski
| Citation | 150 A. 334 |
| Decision Date | 19 May 1930 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 149, 150.,s. 149, 150. |
| Parties | SKIBA et al v. HMIELESKI et al. PUHA et al v. SAME. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey) |
Syllabus by the Court.
In passing upon a motion to nonsuit, and, afterwards to direct a verdict, the court cannot weigh the evidence, but must take as true all testimony which supports the view of the party against whom the motions are made.
Syllabus by the Court.
An automobile is entitled to pass to the left of a car parked on the right-hand side of the road, but the driver must keep a proper lookout and have his car under proper control to avoid collision with a car on-coming from the opposite direction, as the on-coming car, primarily at least, has as much right as the other car to utilize the space in the open road in front of both, and whether or not the driver of the car passing the parked one exercised a proper lookout and had his automobile under proper control is a question for the jury.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Middlesex County.
Separate actions by Charles Skiba, an infant, by John Skiba and mother, his next friends, and others, and by Helen Puha, an infant, by Mike Cherepanah, her next friend, and another, against Edward Hmieleski and another, the cases being tried together. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
Carey & Lane, of Jersey City, for appellants.
Elmer E. Brown, of Carteret, for respondents.
The above suits were instituted in the Middlesex circuit court against defendant-appellants. They were to recover damages alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiffs (occupants of the Skiba car) as a result of a collision between an automobile owned by the plaintiff, John Skiba, and operated by his agent or servant, Charles Skiba, one of the plaintiffs, with a Mack automobile truck owned by the defendants and operated by their agent or servant, John Bonien. The cases were tried together.
After rules to show cause, and in which several of the verdicts were reduced, judgment was entered for the plaintiffs.
There was evidence to go to the jury which justified the verdicts, and a jury question was thus raised.
Harry Romeo, a witness for plaintiff, testified that he was in a parked car at the time and place of the accident, and saw the Skiba car coming down the road towards the front of his car; he also noted the defendant's truck approaching from his rear to the point of the accident. He saw the Skiba car seventy feet away, and the truck was about twenty feet behind him, when the truck swerved out to the left-hand side of the road to pass his car and struck the Skiba car when it was three feet on the dirt shoulder of the right-hand side of the road; it was a large truck with a trailer, with a load of sugar, had a big wide body. The truck did not pull out and stay close to his (Romeo's) car, and, before it came to a stop, was away on the other side of the road, and the Skiba car came in contact with it. The truck pulled over the road too far and caused the accident. There was plenty of room for the truck if it had stayed on the road.
There were other witnesses for the plaintiff, who gave evidence making for that side. And this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Beck v. Monmouth Lumber Co.
...the evidence but must take as true all testimony which supports the view of the party against whom the motions are made. Skiba v. Hmieleski, 106 N.J.L. 597, 150 A. 334. The general rule has been stated that where an instrumentality employed for private benefit is a peril to others the propr......
-
Guzzi v. Jersey Central Power & Light Co.
...15 N.J.Super. 322, 326, 83 A.2d 341 (App.Div.1951); Andre v. Mertens, 88 N.J.L. 626, 96 A. 893 (E. & A.1916); Skiba v. Hmieleski, 106 N.J.L. 597, 150 A. 334 (E. & A.1930); Maudsley v. Richardson & Boynton Co., 101 N.J.L. 561, 129 A. 139 (E. & A.1925); Lipschitz v. N.Y. and N.J. Produce Corp......
-
Lipschitz v. N.Y. & N.J. Produce Corp.
...benefit of all legitimate inferences which are to be drawn therefrom. Andre v. Mertens, 88 N. J. Law, 626, 96 A. 893; Skiba v. Hmieleski, 106 N. J. Law, 597, 150 A. 334; Maudsley v. Richardson & Boynton Co., 101 N. J. Law, 561, 129 A. 139. Where fair-minded men might honestly differ as to t......
-
Rakowski v. Raybestos-manhattan Inc.
...but must accept as true all testimony that supports the view of the party against whom the motions are made. Skiba v. Hmieleski, 106 N.J.L. 597, 150 A. 334 (E. & A.1929). Where fair minded men might honestly differ as to the conclusions to be drawn from the facts, the question at issue shou......