Ziser v. Colonial W. Airways, Inc.
| Decision Date | 10 October 1932 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 18-23.,s. 18-23. |
| Citation | 162 A. 591 |
| Parties | ZISER v. COLONIAL WESTERN AIRWAYS, Inc., and five other cases. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Separate actions by Gabriel Ziser, administrator ad prosequendum of the estate of William Ziser, deceased; by Laura T. Steever, administratrix ad prosequendum of the estate of William G. Steever, deceased; by Gertrude M. Steever, administratrix ad prosequendum of the estate of Gertrude M. Steever, deceased; by Max Newberger, administrator ad prosequendum of the estate of Raymond Helmstetter, deceased; by Andrew Hagymasi, administrator ad prosequendum of the estate of Stephen Hagymasi, deceased; and by Andrew Hagymasi, administrator ad prosequendum of the estate of Frank Hagymasi, deceased, against the Colonial Western Airways, Inc. The cases were tried together. Verdict for plaintiffs. On defendant's rules to show cause.
Rule discharged in case of Laura T. Steever, administratrix ad prosequendum of the estate of William G. Steever, deceased, on condition of remittitur. Rules in the other cases discharged.
Argued October term, 1931, before GUMMERE, C. J., and PARKER and CASE, JJ.
Biro & Strell, Ernest P. Biro and Harry Unger, all of Newark, for plaintiffs.
James D. Carpenter, Jr., of Jersey City, and William D. Reed, of New York City, for defendant.
These cases arise out of an airplane crash at the Newark Airport on Sunday, March 17, 1929. As a result of the accident thirteen passengers were killed. In the suits before us, there were verdicts for the respective plaintiffs, and the trial judge allowed rules to show cause why new trials should not be had. No exceptions were reserved, and the rules therefore involve questions of law as well as of fact.
The cases were tried together, the trial lasted a week or more, and the printed case consists of three volumes, in all some 1,800 pages, and there are nearly 260 pages of printed briefs. The task of examining all this, subject to the interruptions of other business, was necessarily protracted.
The actions were based of course on claims of negligence; partly of the defendant company itself in employing an incompetent and inexperienced pilot, partly of its servants, the ground force, and partly of the pilot himself. Apart from the numerous minor points involving rulings on evidence, instructions to the jury, and refusals of requests to charge, the three fundamental propositions urged are that there was error in refusing to nonsuit, error in refusing to direct a verdict for defendant, and that the verdict was against the weight of evidence. One of the verdicts is also challenged as excessive.
On the date in question, the plane involved was devoted to taking up sight-seeing passengers for a flight of a few minutes to and over New York City and return. The accident occurred about 5 p. m., after six or more trips which had ended safely. The plane was a three-motored Ford plane licensed to carry twelve passengers and no more. On the fatal trip there were thirteen passengers, the pilot, and an associate who apparently was not classed as a passenger. The licensed weight limit was probably not exceeded, but otherwise as to the limit of number. It was a windy, gusty day, as the jury were clearly entitled to find, the wind blowing from the northwest at from 25 to 40 miles an hour. The terrain of the airport and its vicinity was at that time not above reproach, and indeed the airport seems to have been in some respects incomplete. It was situate on a partially reclaimed swamp. To the northwest was the city of Newark; and adjoining the airport on the west was the new state highway on an elevated viaduct. To the north were the extensive city dumps, composed of ashes and other waste matter unloaded into the swamp, and the combustible components of this waste had been fired and were burning. North of these, a railroad yard and tracks ran from east to west. To the east there was another railroad with a number of standing cars. On the south was a considerable area of swamp or reclaimed swamp, affording a clear space...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wright-Phillips v. United Airlines, Inc.
...definition. Schneider v. New Amsterdam Cas. Co., 92 A.2d 66, 69 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1952) (citing Ziser v. Colonial W. Airways, Inc., 162 A. 591 (N.J. 1932) (per curiam)). Likewise, while applying analogous Pennsylvania law, the Third Circuit has held that a plane-for-hire is a publi......
-
Anderson Aviation Sales Co., Inc. v. Perez
...negligent under the facts of this case. For cases dealing with negligent entrustment of airplanes, see: Ziser v. Colonial Western Airways, Inc., 10 N.J.Misc. 1118, 162 A. 591 (1932); Central Flying Service v. Crigger, 215 Ark. 400, 221 S.W.2d 45 We find it was not error for the trial court ......
-
Bledsoe v. Northside Supply & Development Co.
...to pass another motor vehicle on the right.' See also Lewis v. Zagata, 350 Mo. 446, 166 S.W.2d 541. In Ziser v. Colonial Western Airways, 10 N.J.Misc. 1118, 162 A. 591, 592, it was held that violation of rules in loading a plane beyond the numerical limit set was properly submitted to the j......
-
Schneider v. New Amsterdam Cas. Co.
...are. The plane on which plaintiff travelled from Newark to Miami was a public conveyance. Cf. Ziser v. Colonial Western Airways, Inc., 162 A. 591, 10 N.J.Misc. 1118 (Sup.Ct.1932). Since the meaning of the words employed by the defendant insurance company in clause (c) is doubtful or uncerta......
-
MDL consolidation of aviation disaster cases before and after Lexecon.
...and Ebrite v. Crawford, 12 P.2d 937 (Cal. 1932) (companion cases arising from 1928 mid-air collision); Ziser v. Colonial Western Airways, 162 A. 591 (N.J. 1932) (noting that 13 cases arising from 1932 crash at Newark were tried together in New Jersey state courts); Marks v. Mut. Life Ins. C......