Braven v. Meyer Bros.

• Decision Date: 28 February 1949
• Docket Number: No. A-169.,A-169.
• Citation: 64 A.2d 219
• Parties: DEN BRAVEN et al. v. MEYER BROS.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

64 A.2d 219

DEN BRAVEN et al.

v.MEYER BROS.

No. A-169.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Feb. 28, 1949.

Appeal from former Supreme Court, Passaic County.

Action by Geraldine Den Braven, an infant, by her next friends, William Den Braven, Jr., and Marie Den Braven, and others against Meyer Brothers, a corporation, to recover for injuries sustained by infant plaintiff in revolving door at entrance to defendant's department store and for consequential damages. The trial resulted in a nonsuit and from judgment entered thereon, plaintiffs appeal.

Judgment affirmed.

David Cohn, of Paterson, for appellants.

James B. Emory and Markley & Broadhurst, all of Jersey City, for appellee.

ACKERSON, Justice.

This action was instituted on behalf of a girl, eleven years of age, to recover damages for injuries alleged to have been sustained when her right leg was caught between the outer edge of a wing and the concave frame of a revolving door at the entrance to the defendant's department store, and also to recover for her parents the damages alleged to have been sustained by them in consequence thereof. The trial resulted in a nonsuit and this appeal is from the judgment entered thereon.

The girl has gone to the store with her mother who was going to purchase some clothing for her. The mother entered one of the four compartments of the door and, by taking hold of a bar on the wing in front of her, stopped the revolution of the door. The daughter then proceeded to enter the next compartment and had gotten in, with the exception of her right leg, when the door started to revolve again and her leg was caught between the edge of the wing and the frame of the door and she was injured.

The plaintiffs urge, as their only ground for reversal, that the evidence and the inferences therefrom were sufficient to require the court below to submit the question of the defendant's alleged negligence to the jury.

The complaint alleges that the infant plaintiff was, under the circumstances, an invitee; that defendant knowingly permitted the revolving door to be maintained and used in a defective and dangerous condition, and with knowledge of the large number of customers using the store, it failed to have sufficient attendants and guards to control the crowds in the use of this door.

On the latter point it must be noted that the mere presence of a crowd entering or leaving a store does not, in itself alone, constitute actionable negligence, Thurber v. Skouras Theatres Corp., S.Ct.1933, 112 N.J.L. 385, 387, 170 A. 863; Williams v. Essex Amusement Corp., S.Ct.1945, 133 N.J.L. 218, 219, 43 A.2d 828. And the record is barren of any evidence indicating that the actions of the crowd, if there was a crowd, were out of the ordinary, or such as to endanger the safety of the customers entering or leaving the store through the door in question, or contributed in any way to the accident. Revolving doors are now so common that in any ordinary case, such as this, the presence of attendants, to assist the users thereof safely through, is not to be considered a legal duty. Feith v. Kresge Dep't Store Co., Err. & App. 1934, 114 N.J.L. 286, 289, 176 A. 386.

Furthermore, we find no evidence that the door, or the mechanism, was improper, defective or dangerous at any time prior to this occurrence. The proofs in the case lead to only one conclusion, and there are no inferences to be...