Court Opinion

ID: 9752937
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 18:46:29.699158+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:26.007248
License: Public Domain

Pee Curiam.
A group of teenagers was standing or playing near the public road over which defendant’s bus passed in the ordinary course of travel. As the bus was passing, one of the youngsters threw a stone, which came into it and struck the plaintiff, a passenger, in his right eye. He sought damages from the bus company, alleging negligence in failing to anticipate that the incident might occur. The trial court dismissed the action at the close of plaintiff’s proof, holding that no lack of due care on the part of defendant had been shown. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed, taking the view that a jury question as to defendant’s responsibility had been made out within the doctrine of Harpell v. Public Service Coordinated Transport, 20 N. J. 309 (1956). See 70 N. J. Super. 150 (App. Div. 1961). We granted certification, 36 N. J. 297 (1962).
 Our examination of the record fails to indicate that the proof adduced by the plaintiff was sufficient to create a factual issue as to whether the defendant company knew of the existence of a danger of its passengers’ being struck by stones or other objects thrown by children from the public sidewalk or adjacent areas in the vicinity of this accident. We are satisfied also, that the proof was inadequate to establish a jury question as to whether, on this particular occasion, defendant’s driver knew or should have been aware that a stone was likely to be thrown at or into his vehicle. *551Absence of such knowledge on the part of the driver or the bus company suffices to distinguish the case from Harpell v. Public Service Coordinated Transport, supra.
Accordingly, we hold that the trial court was correct and that its order of dismissal should have been sustained in the Appellate Division.
Reversed.