The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1896-08-01
HOB0RHB FERRY WINS
Judge Ludlow Says It Should
Have Had a Non Suit
Against Joseph Feiszt.
Special to the Jerseu C.tg NsNg-

tftt u Z ths H~tS tt-p M
TRENTON, Aug. /, 1s9s.-Justice Lud-
low, yesterday. filed an opinion in the
Court of Errors and Appeals reversing
the decision of the Hudson Circuit of the
New Jersey Supreme Court in the case
Of Joseph Feiszt against the Hoboken
Ferry Company.
In the opinion Justice Ludlow says the
motion of the Ferry Company to non-suit
should have beer granted in the lower
court. He continues
Ferry exits Tor common use of foot
passengers and for teams and vehicles
are places eff obvious danger, and passage
over them suggests and requires a pru-
dent watchfulness against the dangers
~attnedant upon that use. The facts in this
case showed beyond question that Mr..
ings and paid no heed Whatever to his
personal protection or safety, and that
his own carelessness was the sole cause
Of his hurt and of the collision from
which it came"
Mr.. Feiszt was a passenger on a ferry
boat of the Hoboken Ferry Company,
March % 1894, coming from New York
city. and arrived at the Hoboken sid
about 8 P. NJ.
He was a resident of Jersey City. living
On the Heights, and had often used the
ferry to and from New York.
On the afternoon referred to, on his
way TO the street, going over. the usual
ferry exit, he took the north side passen-
ger way. alongside of the team or vehicle
way Of The exit. This exit is of the or
fan like. towards the street, with passen-
ger ways on each side Of the team way,
which is elevated about three inches and
is about ten or twelve feet wid
-th ~ 80 rx-A - -
OF the team way is most used. because
it leads to the sidewalk, and passengers
coming to the exit from the north side
generally cross the team way as quickly
teams or vehicles, and make for this side
walk outlet of the exit. Passengers going
for other points continue or the north
side to the open street as they choose
On the occasion referred TO Mr.. Feiszt
left the north side of the boat and went
toward the street, using the north side
way. He continued On this way for some
distance until he reached a point about
ing, when according to his own testi-
lnony, he heard the sound of IN incoming
horse and wagon. and without looking
towards the boat TO see where this wagon
was, he turned quickly to the left and
ran as fast as he could for the south side
gate or outlet OF the exit. The instant
after mis- sudden change of course, and
as he started across the team way. the
onconing horse and wagon struck him,
and must have been at the time he start
ed TO cross so near that, as he says, if
he had walked instead of running, he
would have walked against the horse.
This horse and wagon had been ferried
over with him on the same boat and was
IN charge OF a driver; the wagon was
ade and the horse was coming down
the team way on a fast walk or slow jog
trot, and the sudden change OF course
of Mr.. Feis2t was SO precipitate that it
was impossible to avoid the collision
which fHQ1 nfaPn alrnNctH ut tho ranyoa71t
after Mr.. Feiszt's change of course.
At the time Mr.. Feiszt changed his
course, he was in a place of safety, and ii
ne had continued on his then way as he
was going ne would have reached the
street without hurt.
The evidence shows clearly and beyond
question that Mr.. Feiszt heard the sound
of the oncprning horse and wagon and
that he did not loek or pay any heed to
their approach, but measuring their dis
lance by the sound, he made a sudden
and rash movement to cross the team
way ahead of the horses then directly
on him.
The evidence in the case, from the testi-
mcny of bystanders who saw the occur
renee proved beyond dispute that the
accident TO Mr.. Feaszt was the result Of
his own thoughless. careless and APP
parently reckless conduct.
The suit was brought by Mr.. Feiszt
against the Hoboken Ferry Company and
Mendel Samuel, the owner of the horse
ana wagon. to recover damages for the
injury received en- the occasion referred
to. 1t was tried at the Hudson Circuit
and resulted in a verdict against the
Hoboken Ferry Company only, against
whom Judgment was had on postea. and
who brings this writ of error. The
other defendant, Samuel, was found not
guilty.
At the trial on the close of the plain
tiff's case, motion was made by the de-
fendanfs to non-suit, because of plain
tlff's failure to show negligence en- part
Of defendants and because the plaintiff $
ifl71ll9N- IT any w1E the yacr,If ~ 49, .--
failure to exercise the ordinary cara and
prudence of a reasonably prudent man in
his situation. and this motion was re-
newed at the close of all evidence. and
IN each instance such motion was re-
fused by the count, exception sealed. and
error is assigned thereon.