Petras v. Public Service Transportation Co.

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Petras v. Public Service Transportation Co.

136 A. 189, 5 N.J. Misc. 237, 1927 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 292

DecidedFebruary 10, 1927

StatusPublished

This text of 136 A. 189 (Petras v. Public Service Transportation 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

Petras v. Public Service Transportation Co., 136 A. 189, 5 N.J. Misc. 237, 1927 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 292 (N.J. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff, while in the act of crossing Roseville avenue, in the city of Newark, about seven o’clock in the morning [238]*238of May 1st, 1925, was struck by defendant’s automobile. He had proceeded some twelve feet and was near the middle of the street at the time when he was struck. He saw the bus, he says, when it was about one hundred and fifty to two hundred feet away, but, apparently, paid no more attention.to it. Instead of observing the highway, and its incidental dangers and hazards, he was reading a newspaper as he walked, and so proceeding walked in front of the bus without observing its proximity or taking heed of the traffic conditions which under such conditions endangered his life.

Under those circumstances he is clearly guilty of contributory negligence, which bars recovery, regardless of the inquiry whether the driver of the automobile himself was negligent in not observing the plaintiff. Brady v. Consolidated Traction Co., 63 N. J. L. 25; Newark Passenger Railway Co. v. Block, 55 Id. 605.

The rule will be made absolute.

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

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff, while in the act of crossing Roseville avenue, in the city of Newark, about seven o’clock in the morning [238]*238of May 1st, 1925, was struck by defendant’s automobile. He had proceeded some twelve feet and was near the middle of the street at the time when he was struck. He saw the bus, he says, when it was about one hundred and fifty to two hundred feet away, but, apparently, paid no more attention.to it. Instead of observing the highway, and its incidental dangers and hazards, he was reading a newspaper as he walked, and so proceeding walked in front of the bus without observing its proximity or taking heed of the traffic conditions which under such conditions endangered his life.

Under those circumstances he is clearly guilty of contributory negligence, which bars recovery, regardless of the inquiry whether the driver of the automobile himself was negligent in not observing the plaintiff. Brady v. Consolidated Traction Co., 63 N. J. L. 25; Newark Passenger Railway Co. v. Block, 55 Id. 605.

The rule will be made absolute.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

136 A. 189, 5 N.J. Misc. 237, 1927 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 292, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/petras-v-public-service-transportation-co-nj-1927.