Garlanger v. Burlington County Transit Co.

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Garlanger v. Burlington County Transit Co.

90 A. 292, 86 N.J.L. 359, 1 Gummere 359, 1914 N.J. LEXIS 268

DecidedMarch 12, 1914

StatusPublished

This text of 90 A. 292 (Garlanger v. Burlington County Transit Co.) 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

Garlanger v. Burlington County Transit Co., 90 A. 292, 86 N.J.L. 359, 1 Gummere 359, 1914 N.J. LEXIS 268 (N.J. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This suit was brought in the New Jersey Supreme Court by Joseph W. Garlanger and Mary W. Garlanger, his wife, against the Burlington County Transit Company to recover damages alleged to have been inflicted upon the plaintiff Mary W. Garlanger, as the result-of a collision between a trolley ear of the defendant company and a horse and buggy in which Mrs. Garlanger was riding, at a crossing near Bancocas Part, Burlington county, on November 9tli, 1912. The case was tried at the Burlington Circuit and resulted in a verdict for the plaintiffs.

At the close of the plaintiffs’ case a motion to nonsuit, on the ground of contributory negligence, was made and held by the court until the conclusion of the whole case, at which time a motion was made for a direction of a verdict for the defendant upon the ground of plaintiffs’ contributory negligence and the absence of negligence on the part of the defendant. The motion was overruled and the case was submitted to the jury.

Without reviewing the testimony it is sufficient to say that the evidence presented a jury question as to whether the de*fendant was or was not negligent, and, if there were contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff, it could only be inferred from testimony which was also susceptible of a con[360]*360trary inference, which made it a question for the jury also. The case of Conrad v. Elizabeth, Plainfield and Central Jersey Railroad Co., 70 N. J. L. 676, controls the case at bar.

The judgment will be affirmed.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Trenchard, Parker, Bergen, Minturn, Kalisch, Bogert, Yredenburgh, Cong-don, White, JJ. 10.

For reversal — Hone.

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

Per Curiam.

This suit was brought in the New Jersey Supreme Court by Joseph W. Garlanger and Mary W. Garlanger, his wife, against the Burlington County Transit Company to recover damages alleged to have been inflicted upon the plaintiff Mary W. Garlanger, as the result-of a collision between a trolley ear of the defendant company and a horse and buggy in which Mrs. Garlanger was riding, at a crossing near Bancocas Part, Burlington county, on November 9tli, 1912. The case was tried at the Burlington Circuit and resulted in a verdict for the plaintiffs.

At the close of the plaintiffs’ case a motion to nonsuit, on the ground of contributory negligence, was made and held by the court until the conclusion of the whole case, at which time a motion was made for a direction of a verdict for the defendant upon the ground of plaintiffs’ contributory negligence and the absence of negligence on the part of the defendant. The motion was overruled and the case was submitted to the jury.

Without reviewing the testimony it is sufficient to say that the evidence presented a jury question as to whether the de*fendant was or was not negligent, and, if there were contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff, it could only be inferred from testimony which was also susceptible of a con[360]*360trary inference, which made it a question for the jury also. The case of Conrad v. Elizabeth, Plainfield and Central Jersey Railroad Co., 70 N. J. L. 676, controls the case at bar.

The judgment will be affirmed.

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Trenchard, Parker, Bergen, Minturn, Kalisch, Bogert, Yredenburgh, Cong-don, White, JJ. 10.

For reversal — Hone.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 A. 292, 86 N.J.L. 359, 1 Gummere 359, 1914 N.J. LEXIS 268, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garlanger-v-burlington-county-transit-co-nj-1914.