Rehfuss v. Prospect Boiler Co.

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Rehfuss v. Prospect Boiler Co.

164 A. 395, 110 N.J.L. 349, 1933 N.J. LEXIS 494

DecidedFebruary 10, 1933

StatusPublished

This text of 164 A. 395 (Rehfuss v. Prospect Boiler 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

Rehfuss v. Prospect Boiler Co., 164 A. 395, 110 N.J.L. 349, 1933 N.J. LEXIS 494 (N.J. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The defendant assigns error because the trial court refused at the close of the plaintiffs’ ease to grant a motion for a nonsuit, because of the plaintiffs’ contributory negligence. Plaintiff, an infant, while standing astraddle his motorcycle in the center of that part of Lincoln Highway known as Raritan avenue, in the borough of Highland Park, was thrown to the pavement by the force of the defendant’s automobile backing into him. The testimony indicates that the defendant’s automobile had come to a stop at a street intersection. The plaintiff brought his motorcycle to a stop about three feet behind the defendant’s car. While he was adjusting some materials strapped in the luggage carrier, the defendant, without warning, backed his car into the plaintiff, causing the injuries complained of. Such facts do not show, as a *350 matter of law, contributory negligence as the proxiniate cause of the injury.

The Traffic act (Pamph. L. 1915, p. 288, § 3) provides: “Before backing, ample warning shall be given, and while backing, unceasing vigilance shall be exercised not to injure those behind.”

In view of the language of the statute, the court’s ruling seems proper. Melia v. Malicke Bus Co., 7 N. J. Mis. R. 860.

The judgment is affirmed.

For affirmance — Paekee, Lloyd, Case, Bodíete, Beogaet, Hehee, Yah Buskiek, Kays, Heteield, Deae, JJ. 10.

For reversal — None.

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

Per Curiam.

The defendant assigns error because the trial court refused at the close of the plaintiffs’ ease to grant a motion for a nonsuit, because of the plaintiffs’ contributory negligence. Plaintiff, an infant, while standing astraddle his motorcycle in the center of that part of Lincoln Highway known as Raritan avenue, in the borough of Highland Park, was thrown to the pavement by the force of the defendant’s automobile backing into him. The testimony indicates that the defendant’s automobile had come to a stop at a street intersection. The plaintiff brought his motorcycle to a stop about three feet behind the defendant’s car. While he was adjusting some materials strapped in the luggage carrier, the defendant, without warning, backed his car into the plaintiff, causing the injuries complained of. Such facts do not show, as a *350 matter of law, contributory negligence as the proxiniate cause of the injury.

The Traffic act (Pamph. L. 1915, p. 288, § 3) provides: “Before backing, ample warning shall be given, and while backing, unceasing vigilance shall be exercised not to injure those behind.”

In view of the language of the statute, the court’s ruling seems proper. Melia v. Malicke Bus Co., 7 N. J. Mis. R. 860.

The judgment is affirmed.

For affirmance — Paekee, Lloyd, Case, Bodíete, Beogaet, Hehee, Yah Buskiek, Kays, Heteield, Deae, JJ. 10.

For reversal — None.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

164 A. 395, 110 N.J.L. 349, 1933 N.J. LEXIS 494, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rehfuss-v-prospect-boiler-co-nj-1933.