Case Name: EMMA S. WRIGHT ET UX., PLAINTIFFS, v. BUILDERS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, DEFENDANT
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1923-11-07
Citations: 1 N.J. Misc. 542
Docket Number: 
Parties: EMMA S. WRIGHT ET UX., PLAINTIFFS, v. BUILDERS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, DEFENDANT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 542–542

Head Matter:
EMMA S. WRIGHT ET UX., PLAINTIFFS, v. BUILDERS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, DEFENDANT.
Argued June 7, 1923
Decided November 7, 1923.
Negligence — Automobile Collisions Almost Always Involve Questions of Convincing Negligence — New Trial Denied.
On rule to show cause.
Before Gummere, Chief Justice, and Justices Minturn and Black.
For the plaintiffs, Sidney W. Fldredge.
For the defendant, Congleton, Stallman & Hoover and Charles W. Weeks.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
This was an accident case growing out of a collision of two automobiles at cross streets or avenues.
The accident occurred on the 27th of December, 1921, at the intersection of Florence avenue and Elmwood avenue, in the town of Irvington. The plaintiffs were driving in a northerly direction along Florence avenue and the defendant's runabout, driven by one Joseph -Carragher, was proceeding along -Elmwood avenue in a westerly direction. The trial resulted in a verdict for the defendant. The plaintiff obtained a rule to show cause and writes down fifteen reasons for a new trial.
We find no sufficient reason for disturbing the verdict. Cases of collisions on highwaj's almost invariably involve questions of concurring negligence on the part of both actors. Fox v. Great Atlantic, &c., Co., 84 N. J. L. 728.
The rule to show cause is discharged.