N.J. Model Civil Jury Charge 5.30A

5.30A GENERAL DUTY OWING (Approved 8/99)

NOTE TO JUDGE

While the judge may prefer to adopt his/her own version of this phase

of the charge, the following has been found to be satisfactory by

many judges.

The plaintiff asserts that the defendant in this case was guilty of negligence

in the operation of his/her automobile. You can appreciate that when people drive

their motor vehicles on our highways, they have certain rights and assume certain

obligations and responsibilities. They ha ve the right to enjoy the streets and

highways but they must make proper and lawful use of this right. They must use it

with reciprocal regard for the rights of others who may be driving upon the

highway, and so as not to negligently injure other persons lawfully upon the streets.

This simply means that the driver of an automobile upon a public highway is

under the duty of exercising for the safety of others that degree of care, precaution

and vigilance in the operation of his/he r car which a reasonably prudent person

would exercise under similar circumstances. It has sometimes been defined as care

commensurate with the risk of danger. Thus, the driver of an automobile is

required to use reasonable care in the control, management and operation of his/her

machine. He/She is required to make such observation for traffic and road

conditions and to exercise such judgment to avoid collision or injury to others on

the highway, as a reasonably prudent person would have done in the

circumstances. This duty of reasonable care by users of the highways is mutual

and ordinarily each may assume that the other will observe that standard of conduct

in the use thereof. Negligence is then the failure to adhere to this standard of

conduct.

Cases:

Goldstone v. Tuers, 189 N.J. Super. 167, 169 (App. Div. 1983) held

that “it is a firmly settled principle of law that a person has the right to

assume that the driver of an automobile will exercise reasonable care

and observe the standard of conduct required of him in the use of the

highway.” Therefore, this principle should be ordinarily charged. In

this particular case, however, the failure to charge the principle was

deemed to be harmless error.