Case Name: ANTHONY SEGRO AND CARMELLA SEGRO, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. PUBLIC SERVICE COORDINATED TRANSPORT, A BODY CORPORATE, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT
Court: New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1949-09-06
Citations: 4 N.J. Super. 521
Docket Number: 
Parties: ANTHONY SEGRO AND CARMELLA SEGRO, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. PUBLIC SERVICE COORDINATED TRANSPORT, A BODY CORPORATE, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Superior Court Reports
Volume: 4
Pages: 521–523

Head Matter:
ANTHONY SEGRO AND CARMELLA SEGRO, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. PUBLIC SERVICE COORDINATED TRANSPORT, A BODY CORPORATE, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division
Argued August 16, 1949
Decided September 6, 1949.
Before Judges Jacobs, Smalley and Schettino.
Mr. Max Feinberg (Mr. Harold Frieger, attorney) argued the cause for the plaintiffs-appellants.
Mr. Luke A. Kiernan, Jr. (Mr. Carl T. Freggens, attorney) argued the cause for the defendant-respondent.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Hudson County Court entered on a motion to dismiss, made at the close of plaintiffs' case.
Carmella Segro (herein referred to as "plaintiff") and her husband sought to recover damages on the charge that she was injured by defendant's negligence. The dismissal was based upon the grounds (1) that there was no evidence that defendant was negligent and (2) that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law.
We think the action of the trial court was erroneous.
Plaintiff's testimony, was to the effect that she, a passenger in defendant's trolley, sought to alight therefrom and that, although the door was open fox her exit, the step remained in an upright position, as a result of which she fell, to the street and was injured. Defendant's contention, that plaintiff's testimony did not amount to a statement that the step was in an upright position before she fell, is not sustained by a fair reading of the record. The evidence was sufficient to preclude a dismissal. Whalen v. Consolidated Traction Co., 61 N. J. L. 606 (E. & A. 1898).
Defendant argues that, since plaintiff testified that she made no observation before-alighting, she was guilty of contributory negligence. Her first observation was apparently made after she had committed herself to a forward motion out of the vehicle. It cannot be said as a matter of law that plaintiff was contributorily negligent in assuming that the step was in the position in which it should have been.
Judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for retrial.