Case Name: AARON MATHIS, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. MICHAEL FANTOZZI, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT; J & R AUTO SALES, INC., ET AL., PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. AARON MATHIS, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT, AND MICHAEL FANTOZZI, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
Court: New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1969-03-28
Citations: 105 N.J. Super. 181
Docket Number: 
Parties: AARON MATHIS, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. MICHAEL FANTOZZI, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. J & R AUTO SALES, INC., ET AL., PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. AARON MATHIS, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT, AND MICHAEL FANTOZZI, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Superior Court Reports
Volume: 105
Pages: 181–183

Head Matter:
AARON MATHIS, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. MICHAEL FANTOZZI, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. J & R AUTO SALES, INC., ET AL., PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. AARON MATHIS, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT, AND MICHAEL FANTOZZI, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division
Argued March 24, 1969
Decided March 28, 1969.
Before Judges Goedmann, Kolovskx and Cabton.
Mr. Harold J. Ruvoldt, Jr. argued the cause for appellant (-Me&srs. Ruvoldt & Ruvoldt, attorneys).
Mr. Marie A. Aurigemma argued the cause for respondent Mathis (Mr. Samuel H. Stein, attorney).
Respondent J & R Auto Sales, Inc. relied on the brief filed on behalf of respondent Mathis (Mr. Victor F. DeVito, attorney).

Opinion:
Pee Cubiam.
Defendant Eantozzi appeals from separate judgments entered on a jury verdict in these consolidated actions, awarding plaintiff Mathis $1,470 for his personal injuries and plaintiff J So R Sales, Inc. $925 for property damage. He also appeals from the denial of his motion for a new trial.
We agree with the trial court that since both Mathis and Eantozzi acknowledged that drivers using the Hudson County Boulevard stop at the nearest corner when the lights on the Boulevard are red against them — a practice which both said they followed — that practice was appropriately a factor to be considered by the jury in determining the issue of negligence. Accordingly, we find no merit in the claim that it was error to admit testimony as to such custom and usage. 2 Restatement, Torts 2d, § 295A, p. 62 (1965); 2 Harper and James, The Law of Torts, 977 et seq. (1956); Annotation, "Custom or practice of drivers of motor vehicles as affecting question of negligence," 172 A. L. R. 1141 (1948), 77 A. L. R. 2d 1327 (1961). Nor was there prejudicial error, in the circumstances here present, to permit evidence of the custom even though it had not been specifically pleaded. See 38 Am. Jur., Negligence, § 267, p. 957 (1941).
We have examined the trial judge's charge and, contrary to defendant's contention, find no error therein.
Affirmed.