Case ID: nj-misc_3/html/0409-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Peb Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

NELLIE FITZGERALD, RESPONDENT, v. RICHARD A. DeMOTT, APPELLANT.
    Submitted January 16, 1925
    Decided April 16, 1925.
    Negligence — Motor Vehicle Ran Down Pedestrian Going in Same Direction — Under Circumstances Direction of Verdict or Non-suit was Out of Question.
    On appeal from the Bergen Circuit Court.
    Before Gummere, Chief Justice, and Justices Parker and Katzenbach.
    For the appellant, Frank O. Turner.
    
    For the respondent, Charles W. Hulst.
    
   Peb Curiam.

Plaintiff and a party of friends, eight or ten in all, were walking on the right side of a county road at night, when plaintiff was run into from behind by defendant’s automobile going in the same direction with lights burning. Plaintiff had a verdict and judgment for damages, which we are asked to reverse on these grounds:

1. Refusal to nonsuit (a) because no negligence of defendant appeared; (b) because of contributory negligence of plaintiff.

2. Refusal to direct a verdict for defendant on the same grounds,

3. Refusal to order a mistrial because one of the witnesses, not responsively to any question, interjected something about photographs taken for an insurance company.

How a trial judge, under the circumstances of this case, could properly nonsuit or direct for the defendant on questions either of negligence or contributory negligence, is quite beyond our comprehension.

As to the casual mention of insurance, it is sufficient to cite Bashaw v. Eichenberger, 2 N. J. Adv. R. 1124.

Judgment affirmed.