Simko v. Mount

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Decided September 27, 1933

Supreme Court of New Jersey · decided 1933-09-27

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently April 1934

1 federal appellate ·

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1933-09-27

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam,

¶1 The judgment under review will be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion filed in the Supreme Court.

¶2 For affirmance — -The Chancellor, Chiee Justice, Trenchard, Parker, Case, Heher, Perskie, Van Buskirk, Kays, Heteield, Dear, Wells, Dill, JJ. 13.

¶3 For reversal — None.

Download

Copy

Embed on your site

Hover to preview · click to copy the code

Search Wikipedia →

Case posture

Posture: On appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, where the following per curiam opinion was filed: This is an appeal from a judgment of the Union County Court of Common Pleas entered upon the verdict of a jury. Plaintiff sought to recover for personal injuries sustained as a result of being struck by an automobile owned and driven by the defendant. The only ground of appeal is that the court should have nonsuited the plaintiff or directed a verdict for the defendant on the ground that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence and assumed the open and obvious risk of his injury. The accident occurred at twelve-thirty A.M., on August 10th, 1931, at the intersection of Frelinghuysen avenue and Bigelow street, in Newark. There was a light rain falling at the time. Plaintiff desired to cross from the east to the west side of Frelinghuysen avenue. Defendant was driving southerly on that avenue. The plaintiff's version of the accident was told in these words: `I was standing on the sidewalk waiting for automobiles passing toward Newark, and I seen this street was clear, and then I seen the fellow was coming about five hundred feet or more the other side of Stanton street — anybody knows it. When the Mount automobile was coming towards Elizabeth, when I seen he was that far distant, I walked across the street. I got only as far as the curb, I figure about six or seven feet away or eight, about that far, and the fellow was coming fast, and he came down and hit me, and I don't know anything about afterwards, because I was unconscious.' In the state of facts presented, it appeared that plaintiff was endeavoring to cross the street at a crosswalk, under circumstances from which the jury might conclude that he had ample time to get safely across, if defendant exercised reasonable care in the operation of his automobile, and had his car under such control as not to jeopardize the safety of pedestrians who were using due care in crossing a street at a crosswalk. Tischler v. Steinholtz, 99 N.J.L. 149 ; Newham v. Nazzara, 107 Id. 208 . We conclude that the questions of fact were properly left to the jury. The judgment under review will be affirmed, with costs.

Source: CourtListener

Court

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Parallel citations

168 A 308