The opinion of the court was delivered by COLIE, J.A.D.
This appeal is from a judgment of involuntary dismissal of the plaintiff's suit.
At the close of the plaintiff's case, there was testimony that at about 11 P.M. on a rainy night the deceased was crossing Hudson Boulevard just north of 60th Street, West New York, from west to east, when the lights were green for north and southbound traffic; that he stepped from a safety isle, went
A dismissal at the conclusion of the plaintiff's case is proper only when the evidence and all legitimate inferences to be drawn therefrom are such that no view which the jury might lawfully take of it favorable to the other party would be sustained. Dobrow v. Hertz, 125 N.J.L. 347 (E. & A. 1940). Negligence is never presumed and the mere happening of an accident, standing alone, will not support an inference of negligence, but in the present case there were other elements present. It was raining hard at the time, there was evidence of speed in excess of the statutory limit, no evidence of a slackening of speed by the drivers of any of the three cars although decedent was visible to the witness McDonough and from the latter fact it would seem that the jury might reasonably infer either that the respective drivers made no observations, or if they did so, they were ineffective. From this we deduce that there was evidence in the case from which the jury might draw reasonable inferences of negligence and therefore it was error to enter a judgment of dismissal.
The judgment is reversed.