Howard v. Lehigh Valley Railroad

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Howard v. Lehigh Valley Railroad

146 A. 587, 7 N.J. Misc. 581, 1929 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 234

DecidedJune 21, 1929

StatusPublished

This text of 146 A. 587 (Howard v. Lehigh Valley Railroad) 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

Howard v. Lehigh Valley Railroad, 146 A. 587, 7 N.J. Misc. 581, 1929 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 234 (N.J. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

Per' Curiam.

In these cases the plaintiffs were injured by driving their automobiles into a railroad crossing signal located in the center of the public highway. The crossing signal was placed in the highway by the permission of the board of freeholders of Somerset county, and conformed to the usual cross-arm type.

The case is ruled by Mr. Justice Parker’s opinion in Lorentz v. Public Service Railway Co., 103 N. J. L. 104. It appears that the structure was a lawful structure, erected, pursuant to lawful public authority and similar to many such structures. Such a structure facilitates and makes safe public travel, and although it is an obstruction in the street it is not a nuisance and the traveling public must take notice of it. The point is made that no sign was set up under section 35 of the Railroad act, but none seems to have been required.

There being no evidence to justify a recovery under the circumstances the court should have found in favor of the defendant.

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

Per' Curiam.

In these cases the plaintiffs were injured by driving their automobiles into a railroad crossing signal located in the center of the public highway. The crossing signal was placed in the highway by the permission of the board of freeholders of Somerset county, and conformed to the usual cross-arm type.

The case is ruled by Mr. Justice Parker’s opinion in Lorentz v. Public Service Railway Co., 103 N. J. L. 104. It appears that the structure was a lawful structure, erected, pursuant to lawful public authority and similar to many such structures. Such a structure facilitates and makes safe public travel, and although it is an obstruction in the street it is not a nuisance and the traveling public must take notice of it. The point is made that no sign was set up under section 35 of the Railroad act, but none seems to have been required.

There being no evidence to justify a recovery under the circumstances the court should have found in favor of the defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

146 A. 587, 7 N.J. Misc. 581, 1929 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 234, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/howard-v-lehigh-valley-railroad-nj-1929.