Whilt v. Publtc Serv. Corp. of N.J.

• Decision Date: 16 November 1908
• Citation: Whilt v. Publtc Serv. Corp. of N.J., 74 A. 568, 76 N.J.L. 729 (N.J. 1908)
• Parties: WHILT v. PUBLTC SERVICE CORPORATION OF NEW JERSEY.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

74 A. 568

76 N.J.L. 729

WHILT

v. PUBLTC SERVICE CORPORATION OF NEW JERSEY.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

Nov. 16, 1908.

Dissenting opinion.

For majority opinion, see 72 Atl. 420.

GARRISON, J. The opinion of Mr. Justice BERGEN states the pertinent facts of this case so fully and the pertinent rules of law so fairly that, if it were not for his conclusion that the negligence of the defendant could not be inferred therefrom, I could concur in the opinion as amply justifying my conclusion that the negligence of the defendant was not only inferable, but had been prima facie made out.

This general concurrence in the statements of the opinion extends to its specific statement of the legal relation of the parties and of the kind and degree of care that was owing by the defendant to the plaintiff as its passenger. I think it also extends to the statement that, when the defendant had landed the plaintiff in the highway, its responsibility to him for the safety of the highway and its incidents was at an end, or perhaps never existed.

The point at which we part company is not one either of fact or of law, but is rather a conclusion of fact that constitutes the entire logical groundwork of the result reached by the opinion. This conclusion of fact is that plaintiff's injury resulted from an unsafe condition incident to the highway, for which the defendant was not legally responsible; whereas I think that the plaintiffs injuries resulted from an abnormal condition of the car which he had just left, and which had not passed on so as to be beyond the probable contingence of its inflicting such injury upon him. The distinction...