Case Name: SELIG WARSHAWSKY ET AL. v. THE RARITAN TRACTION COMPANY
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1902-06-09
Citations: 68 N.J.L. 241
Docket Number: 
Parties: SELIG WARSHAWSKY ET AL. v. THE RARITAN TRACTION COMPANY.
Judges: Before Gummbre, Chibe Justice, and Justices Van Syokel, Garrison and Garretson.
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 68
Pages: 241–242

Head Matter:
SELIG WARSHAWSKY ET AL. v. THE RARITAN TRACTION COMPANY.
Submitted March, 1902
Decided June 9, 1902.
. It is not necessary, in a'declaration for personal injuries, to negative contributory negligence on the part of the defendant; it is sufficient if the contributory negligence of the plaintiff does not appear from the facts set out in the declaration.
On demurrer to declaration.
Before Gummbre, Chibe Justice, and Justices Van Syokel, Garrison and Garretson.
For the demurrant, James S. Wight.
Contra, Louis Hood.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The ground upbn which this demurrer rests is that the declaration fails to negative contributory negligence on the part of the defendant. This is not necessary. It is sufficient if the contributory negligence of the plaintiff does not appear from the facts set out in the declaration.
The demurrant seems to have been misled by a statement appearing in our decisions in the case of Falk v. New York, Susquehanna and Western Railroad Co., 27 Vroom 384. In that case we declared that "it. is not necessary for the plaintiff to circumstantially deny negligence on his part. After the averment of negligence on the part of the defendant, causing the injury, a general negation of neglect on his part is entirely sufficient."
The presence of the last clause in the final sentence of this quotation is due to the fact that, in the declaration then under consideration, there was a general negation of neglect on the part of the plaintiff.
The demurrer should be overruled.