98 N.J.L. 148 | N.J. | 1922
The opinion of the court was delivered by
The plaintiff was injured while driving on a street in Camden where the Public Service Railway Company had made an excavation. He vras allowed to recover upon the theory that they had not taken sufficient care to guard the excavation. This was proper. An excavation of this character is necessarily more or less of an interference with public travel and a menace to the public unless properly guarded. What is proper care in this respect is a jury question. The case is like T. A. Gilespie Co. v. Cumming, 62 N. J. L. 370. The plaintiff mistook his road in the confusion caused by the numerous red lights, and it was for the jury to say whether he had exercised reasonable care in this
It is probable that all the counsel knew that the tracks were the tracks of the West Jersey and Seashore Eailroad Company, and took it for granted that there was more proof of that fact than there was, but there was enough in the absence of contradiction.
The judgment must be affirmed, with costs.
For affirmance — The Chancellor, Swayze, Trenchard, Bergen, Minttjrn, Black, Katzenbach, White, Williams, Gardner, Ackerson, Van Busktrk, JJ. 12.
For reversal — None.