Case ID: njl_89/html/0366-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

KARL F. RAEUBER, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. PUBLIC SERVICE RAILWAY COMPANY, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
    Submitted March 27, 1916
    Decided June 19, 1916.
    On appeal from the Supreme Court, in which the following per curiam was filed:
    
      “This was an action for personal injuries received by the plaintiff while alighting from a car of the defendant company, in the city of Camden. The plaintiff had a verdict and judgment. The defendant appeals.
    “Plaintiff’s case was that, being a passenger on the defendant’s car, and desiring to leave the car at Eighth street, he advised the conductor of his wish; that upon arriving at Seventh street, he again told the conductor to let him off at Eighth, and the conductor gave the necessary signal to the motorman; that after the signal was given he (the plaintiff) went out on the platform; that the car slacked up; that he stepped onto the step; and that just at that moment the car gave a jerk which threw him into the street.
    “We think this judgment cannot be sustained. There is no proof that the jerk of which plaintiff complains was abnormal, or anything more than was merely incidental to the proper operation of the car. Consequently, no negligence was shown which rendered the defendant company responsible for plaintiff’s injury. The plaintiff, in taking his position upon the step, assumed the risk of accident which might result from normal operation, and had only himself to blame for the injuries which he received.
    “It is true that the motorman testified that there was no observable jerk after he began to slow down the car. But, conceding that the jury had a right to disbelieve this statement, the nullifying of his testimony will not supply the evidence which the plaintiff was bound to produce, namely, evidence showing abnormality in the operation of the car.
    “The judgment under review will be reversed.”
    For the plaintiff-appellant, Stackhouse & Kramer.
    
    For the defendant-respondent, Lefferts S. Hoffman.
    
   Per Curiam.

The judgment under review will be affirmed, for the reasons set forth in the opinion of the Supreme Court.

For affirmance—-The Chancellor, Garrison, Trenchard, Parker, Minturn, Black, White, Terhune, HepPENHEIMER, WILLIAMS, TAYLOR, GARDNER, JJ. 12.

For reversal—Kalisch, J. 1.