Vickers v. City of Camden

• Decision Date: 13 January 1939
• Docket Number: Nos. 37, 38.,s. 37, 38.
• Citation: 3 A.2d 613,122 N.J.L. 14
• Parties: VICKERS v. CITY OF CAMDEN. WALLACE v. SAME.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

3 A.2d 613

122 N.J.L. 14

VICKERS

v. CITY OF CAMDEN.

WALLACE

v. SAME.

Nos. 37, 38.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

Jan. 13, 1939.

Appeal from Supreme Court.

Actions by Garland P. Vickers and Bruce A. Wallace, administrator ad prosequendum and general administrator of the estate of Davis L. Love, deceased, against the City of Camden, for injuries sustained as a result of defendant's failure to have automatic traffic lights properly operating. A motion for nonsuit was granted, and plaintiffs appeal.

Judgment affirmed.

Albert S. Woodruff, of Camden, for appellants.

Firmin Michel, of Camden (William J. Shepp, of Camden, of counsel), for respondent.

PORTER, Justice.

These two cases are here on appeal from the Supreme Court, Camden Circuit, where they were tried together for convenience, both arising out of the same occurrence.

The actions were to recover damages from the City of Camden, arising out of an automobile collision in which two young men were seriously injured and burned. One of them, Davis L. Love, died within a few days as a result of his hurts and his administrator ad prosequendum and general administrator of his estate is the plaintiff in the one suit and Garland P. Vickers, who was seriously and permanently injured, is the plaintiff in the other suit. Both these men were riding in an automobile truck which was in collision with another automobile at the intersection of N. J. State Highway Route 25, on which their automobile was traveling, and Federal Street, on which the other automobile was traveling.

This intersection is partly in the City of Camden and partly in the Township of Pennsauken, the dividing line between the two municipalities running through the center of Federal Street.

Automatic traffic signal lights were maintained at this intersection on each of the four corners at the joint expense of the two municipalities. At the time of the collision they were out of order and the lights showed green for both highways at the same time so that the indication was a right of way for both drivers. Both continued on their courses and the collision resulted. By arrangement between the municipalities, for convenience, Camden undertook the care and control of the signals. The lights had not been operating properly for several days before the accident and notice of that fact had been given to Camden.

At the close of the plaintiffs' case a motion for a nonsuit was granted by Judge Palmer, the trial judge.

The propriety of that ruling is the sole ground of appeal.

Municipalities are not responsible for negligence except it be the result of active wrongdoing or when in the performance of other than governmental functions. The question presented for determination is whether the neglect or omission to have these lights repaired, so that they worked properly, was an act of active wrongdoing.

We conclude that it was not, but was rather an act of negligence. There is no testimony that the lights were improperly constructed. On the contrary, they had been operating properly for a number of years. They simply became out of order and the negligence or wrongful act was the failure to...