Naumenko v. Burrell

1 Citing case

  1. Roberts v. Hooper

    181 N.J. Super. 474 (App. Div. 1981)   Cited 8 times

    The trial judge does not set out to the jury that it could exonerate defendant of negligence only if it found that he had met the burden of proof, as an affirmative defense, that his brakes suddenly failed without knowledge or reason to know on his part of any condition or defect which might result in brake failure. Naumenko v. Burrell, 144 N.J. Super. 355, 357 (App.Div. 1976). By contrast, the trial judge's general charge on negligence omits specific duties of the driver of a car approaching a stopped vehicle ahead, e.g., the duties to exercise reasonable care in the control of his car and in making observations of traffic ahead, to drive at a reasonably safe speed and to maintain a reasonably safe distance behind the vehicle ahead, under all the circumstances.