Laffler v. Lafer

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Laffler v. Lafer

142 A. 545, 6 N.J. Misc. 709, 1928 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 129

DecidedJuly 7, 1928

StatusPublished

This text of 142 A. 545 (Laffler v. Lafer) 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

Laffler v. Lafer, 142 A. 545, 6 N.J. Misc. 709, 1928 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 129 (N.J. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is plaintiff’s rule for a new trial. Jacob Laffler was killed through being struck by an automobile driven by Lafer and owned by Amirkonian. There was evidence of negligence of Lafer in driving the car and of Amirkonian in the inadequate equipment of the car as to lights and brakes. The finding of the jury in favor of the defendants, however, we think was justified on the ground that the negligence of Laffler was a contributing cause to his own death.

The evidence was that when struck he was walking towards defendant’s car in the centre of Myrtle avenue between Harrison and Sherman streets, in Passaic, at eleven-thirty p. m., on December 26th, 1925, and that it was very dark. Eor one to walk longitudinally in the middle of a highway (the portion usually occupied by vehicular traffic) on a dark night in a populous city is, we think, an act of imprudence from which a jury could properly infer legal negligence.

The rule for a new trial is therefore discharged.

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

Per Curiam.

This is plaintiff’s rule for a new trial. Jacob Laffler was killed through being struck by an automobile driven by Lafer and owned by Amirkonian. There was evidence of negligence of Lafer in driving the car and of Amirkonian in the inadequate equipment of the car as to lights and brakes. The finding of the jury in favor of the defendants, however, we think was justified on the ground that the negligence of Laffler was a contributing cause to his own death.

The evidence was that when struck he was walking towards defendant’s car in the centre of Myrtle avenue between Harrison and Sherman streets, in Passaic, at eleven-thirty p. m., on December 26th, 1925, and that it was very dark. Eor one to walk longitudinally in the middle of a highway (the portion usually occupied by vehicular traffic) on a dark night in a populous city is, we think, an act of imprudence from which a jury could properly infer legal negligence.

The rule for a new trial is therefore discharged.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

142 A. 545, 6 N.J. Misc. 709, 1928 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 129, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/laffler-v-lafer-nj-1928.