Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Reti v. Vaniska Inc.

June 13, 1951

CHARLES RETI, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
VANISKA, INC., A CORPORATION OF NEW JERSEY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS



McGeehan, Jayne and Wm. J. Brennan, Jr. The opinion of the court was delivered by William J. Brennan, Jr., J.A.D.

Brennan

At the first trial of this case defendant's motion to dismiss, made at the end of plaintiff's opening, was granted. We reversed. Reti v. Vaniska, Inc. , 8 N.J. Super. 275 (App. Div. 1950).

Upon the retrial, plaintiff's action was again dismissed, this time at the close of all the proofs. Plaintiff appeals from the ensuing judgment.

Plaintiff was entitled upon the motion to have all proofs supporting his claim accepted as true and to the benefit of all legitimate inferences which might be derived therefrom. Cirulli v. Licata , 10 N.J. Super. 449 (App. Div. 1950). We have reviewed the record in light of that principle.

Defendant Gisinger operated a taxicab owned by defendant Vaniska, Inc. On July 23, 1947, at about ten o'clock in the morning, one McNulty hired the taxicab at the Vaniska cab-stand on North Wood Avenue, Linden. He "wanted to look the town over," and directed Gisinger to drive up [14 NJSuper Page 96] Wood Avenue. En route McNulty inquired the amount of fare to the State of Virginia. Gisinger ascertained from his employer, by means of the "two way radio" in the cab, that the fare would be $100. McNulty exhibited a "roll of bills," which satisfied Gisinger of his ability to pay the fare. Gisinger told McNulty he would have to make some preparations for the trip and McNulty asked him "to drop him off at the tavern on Elizabeth Avenue" and return for him after the preparations were completed. Gisinger did so and picked up McNulty "about half an hour later." Gisinger then proceeded to Route 25. When he reached Rahway McNulty directed him to "go back towards Elizabeth." Gisinger did so. Upon reaching Linden, McNulty directed Gisinger to drop him off at "Woty's Tavern at Tremley Point" and wait. McNulty was "badly intoxicated" at the time. After waiting a while Gisinger entered the tavern and saw McNulty "sitting about the middle of the bar" drinking. It was then about one o'clock. Gisinger went to the men's lavatory and when he came out three to five minutes later he saw that McNulty had gone. Gisinger went outside and "I seen the cab going up the street." McNulty had taken the cab. There was a police officer nearby whom Gisinger hailed, and he and Gisinger chased after the taxicab on foot. The taxicab circled the block and passed Gisinger and the officer after almost running them down. The officer commandeered a passing automobile in which he and Gisinger followed the taxicab to a point on a neighboring road where they discovered that it had collided with a truck driven by the plaintiff. The plaintiff's version of the manner in which the mishap occurred was, "I noticed this cab coming off the bridge, the railroad bridge, Tremley Point Road, and he was swaying, sort of. He hit the dirt pavement, and the dirt alongside of the pavement, and he seemed to sway over to the left, so I pulled off the road and tried to get out of his way. I could not go any further, and I reached the end of the pavement there, and he came head on into me." It is obvious that McNulty's negligent operation of the taxicab in his

intoxicated condition caused the accident and that plaintiff was without fault.

Gisinger's testimony was that when he entered the tavern he took the key from the ignition lock, and his change carrier, and left them both on the end of the bar when he went into the lavatory. We accept, however, for the purposes of the appeal, plaintiff's version that Gisinger left the key in the ignition lock, -- this on the basis of plaintiff's evidence that some time after the event Gisinger admitted to him that such was the fact.

The question is whether the evidence presented a jury question whether defendants were guilty of negligence resulting in the damages sustained by plaintiff. Whether due care on the part of the driver of an automobile when leaving it unattended in a public street requires that he lock the ignition and remove the ignition key, is, in the absence of any statutory requirement in this connection, a matter upon which the many decisions on the subject throughout the country are at variance. The cases are collected in Annotations at 158 A.L.R. 1374, and 26 A.L.R. 912.

Plaintiff's action does not have the support of a statute or city ordinance, and for that reason many of the cases cited by him arising under a statute or ordinance are not pertinent authorities. Where there is a statute or ordinance which is violated by leaving a car unattended with keys in it, some jurisdictions have interpreted the legislation as requiring that the person violating the statute respond in damages even when the willful act of a third party has intervened. Such was the holding in Ross v. Hartman , 78 U.S. App. D.C. 217, 139 F.2d 14, 158 A.L.R. 1370 (U.S. App. Div., D.C. 1943), certiorari denied 321 U.S. 790, 64 S. Ct. 790, 88 L. Ed. 1080 (1944), and Ostergard v. Frisch , 333 Ill. App. 359, 77 N.E. 2 d 537 (App. Ct. Ill. 1948), cited by plaintiff. Other jurisdictions have held that the violator was not liable in such circumstances on the ground that violation was not the proximate cause of the injury. Galbraith v. Levin , 323 Mass. 255, 81 N.E. 2 d 560 (Sup. Jud. Ct. 1948); Roberts

v. Lundy , 301 Mich. 726, 4 N.W. 2 d 74 (Sup. Ct. Mich. 1942); Wannebo v. Gates et al. , 227 Minn. 194, 34 N.W. 2 d 695 (Sup. Ct. Minn. 1948). The difference in result apparently depends upon the view whether the injuries were the consequences which the particular statute or ordinance was intended to prevent.

In this State, however, when, as in this case, it is not claimed that any statute or ordinance was violated, the applicable test is that laid down in Barbanes v. Brown , 110 N.J.L. 6, 7 (Sup. Ct. 1932): "The general rule is that a person who leaves an automobile in a public street unattended is under a duty to exercise such care in doing so as a person of ordinary prudence would exercise in the circumstances; and failure to exercise such care, whereby the machine by force of gravity, or by some other cause reasonably to be anticipated or ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.