Consolidated Traction Co. v. Shaffery

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Consolidated Traction Co. v. Shaffery

36 A. 890, 60 N.J.L. 34, 31 Vroom 34, 1897 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 130

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedFebruary 15, 1897

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 36 A. 890 (Consolidated Traction Co. v. Shaffery) 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.

Bluebook

Consolidated Traction Co. v. Shaffery, 36 A. 890, 60 N.J.L. 34, 31 Vroom 34, 1897 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 130 (N.J. 1897).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Garrison, J.

The basis of this action, which is for personal injuries, is a collision that occurred between one of the defendant’s cars and the wagon of the plaintiff. Stated generally, the facts were that the plaintiff, who had been driving -upon defendant’s eastbound track, was required to leave it in order to permit the passage of a car that had come up behind him. He drew over to cross to the westbound track, and had so far crossed it that the hind wheels of his wagon alone were on the track, when a car of the defendant, coming toward him on the westbound track, struck a hind wheel, throwing the plaintiff from his wagon. The result of our •examination of the case is that every rule of law pertinent to the liability of the defendant or to the relative duty of the parties under the circumstances deducible from the evidence, was laid before the jury in a charge that lacked no element necessary to its clearness and accuracy. No principles of law were laid down that had not already been pronounced by the .appellate tribunals of this, state, and no application of them made that did not leave to the jury the questions proper to be left, and which would tend to aid them in the discharge of their duty.

A careful review of the numerous assignments of error fails to disclose any ground upon which this judgment can be ■disturbed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Garrison, J.

The basis of this action, which is for personal injuries, is a collision that occurred between one of the defendant’s cars and the wagon of the plaintiff. Stated generally, the facts were that the plaintiff, who had been driving -upon defendant’s eastbound track, was required to leave it in order to permit the passage of a car that had come up behind him. He drew over to cross to the westbound track, and had so far crossed it that the hind wheels of his wagon alone were on the track, when a car of the defendant, coming toward him on the westbound track, struck a hind wheel, throwing the plaintiff from his wagon. The result of our •examination of the case is that every rule of law pertinent to the liability of the defendant or to the relative duty of the parties under the circumstances deducible from the evidence, was laid before the jury in a charge that lacked no element necessary to its clearness and accuracy. No principles of law were laid down that had not already been pronounced by the .appellate tribunals of this, state, and no application of them made that did not leave to the jury the questions proper to be left, and which would tend to aid them in the discharge of their duty.

A careful review of the numerous assignments of error fails to disclose any ground upon which this judgment can be ■disturbed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

36 A. 890, 60 N.J.L. 34, 31 Vroom 34, 1897 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 130, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/consolidated-traction-co-v-shaffery-nj-1897.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack