Consolidated Traction Co. v. Isley
This text of 35 A. 896 (Consolidated Traction Co. v. Isley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Every substantial assignment of error in this case is disposed of by the decisions of this court in the cases of Newark Passenger Railway Co. v. Block, 26 Vroom 605, and Connelly v. Trenton Passenger Railway Co., 27 Id. 700.
Despite these conclusive declarations of the law with respect to the status of surface roads occupying the highways, cases continue to be tried below and to be argued before this court as if such vehicles had some rights that were, in law, paramount to those of other users of the highways. It ought not to be necessary, in view of these adjudications, to make repeated announcements of the law upon this subject. In the case in hand the sole question was whether a person using the street as the plaintiff was, used that degree of caution that an ordinarily prudent pedestrian would use in view of all the surrounding circumstances.
Inasmuch as this question was one about which a difference of opinion might reasonably be entertained, the decision of the jury must, upon error, be a finality, and the judgment pronounced upon such verdict must be affirmed.
[225]*225For affirmance — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Depue, Dixon, Garrison, Gummere, Ludlow, Mague, Van Syckel, Barkalow, Bogert, Dayton, Hendrickson, Nixon. 14.
For reversal—None.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
35 A. 896, 59 N.J.L. 224, 30 Vroom 224, 1896 N.J. LEXIS 47, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/consolidated-traction-co-v-isley-nj-1896.