Mathis v. Fantozzi

New Jersey Superior Court App Division

Mathis v. Fantozzi

251 A.2d 469, 105 N.J. Super. 181, 1969 N.J. Super. LEXIS 510

CourtNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division

DecidedMarch 28, 1969

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 251 A.2d 469 (Mathis v. Fantozzi) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mathis v. Fantozzi, 251 A.2d 469, 105 N.J. Super. 181, 1969 N.J. Super. LEXIS 510 (N.J. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Cubiam.

Defendant Eantozzi appeals from separate judgments entered on a jury verdict in these consolidated actions, awarding plaintiff Mathis $1,470 for his personal injuries and plaintiff J So R Sales, Inc. $925 for property damage. He also appeals from the denial of his motion for a new trial.

We agree with the trial court that since both Mathis and Eantozzi acknowledged that drivers using the Hudson County Boulevard stop at the nearest corner when the lights on the Boulevard are red against them — a practice which both said they followed — that practice was appropriately a factor to be considered by the jury in determining the issue of negligence. Accordingly, we find no merit in the claim that it was error to admit testimony as to such custom and usage. 2 Restatement, Torts 2d, § 295A, p. 62 (1965); 2 Harper and James, The Law of Torts, 977 et seq. (1956); [183]*183Annotation, “Custom or practice of drivers of motor vehicles as affecting question of negligence,” 172 A. L. R. 1141 (1948), 77 A. L. R. 2d 1327 (1961). Nor was there prejudicial error, in the circumstances here present, to permit evidence of the custom even though it had not been specifically pleaded. See 38 Am. Jur., Negligence, § 267, p. 957 (1941).

We have examined the trial judge’s charge and, contrary to defendant’s contention, find no error therein.

Affirmed.

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

Pee Cubiam.

Defendant Eantozzi appeals from separate judgments entered on a jury verdict in these consolidated actions, awarding plaintiff Mathis $1,470 for his personal injuries and plaintiff J So R Sales, Inc. $925 for property damage. He also appeals from the denial of his motion for a new trial.

We agree with the trial court that since both Mathis and Eantozzi acknowledged that drivers using the Hudson County Boulevard stop at the nearest corner when the lights on the Boulevard are red against them — a practice which both said they followed — that practice was appropriately a factor to be considered by the jury in determining the issue of negligence. Accordingly, we find no merit in the claim that it was error to admit testimony as to such custom and usage. 2 Restatement, Torts 2d, § 295A, p. 62 (1965); 2 Harper and James, The Law of Torts, 977 et seq. (1956); [183]*183Annotation, “Custom or practice of drivers of motor vehicles as affecting question of negligence,” 172 A. L. R. 1141 (1948), 77 A. L. R. 2d 1327 (1961). Nor was there prejudicial error, in the circumstances here present, to permit evidence of the custom even though it had not been specifically pleaded. See 38 Am. Jur., Negligence, § 267, p. 957 (1941).

We have examined the trial judge’s charge and, contrary to defendant’s contention, find no error therein.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.2d 469, 105 N.J. Super. 181, 1969 N.J. Super. LEXIS 510, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mathis-v-fantozzi-njsuperctappdiv-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack