Ansbro v. Wallace
| Decision Date | 20 October 1924 |
| Docket Number | No. 30.,30. |
| Citation | 126 A. 426 |
| Parties | ANSBRO et al. v. WALLACE et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Appeal from Supreme Court.
Action by Eva B. Ansbro and another against William W. Wallace and others. From a judgment of nonsuit as to defendants Wallace and the Borough of Keyport, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.
Reilly, Quinn & Parsons, of Redbank, for appellants.
Snyder & Roberts, of Atlantic Highlands, for respondent Borough of Keyport.
The plaintiff Eva Ansbro instituted this action against William W. Wallace, Richard Heuser, and the Borough of Keyport to recover damages for injuries occurring to her by tripping over a grade stake, placed by Heuser, the borough's engineer, in the sidewalk abutting and located on the property owned by Wallace. The plaintiff Peter Ansbro, husband of Eva, joined her in the suit, claiming damages for money expended for doctor's bills for her on account of the injury, and for deprivation of his wife's services in the household. The case was tried at the Monmouth circuit before Daly, J., and a jury. At the conclusion of the plaintiffs' case, motions for nonsuit were made on behalf of the defendants Wallace and the Borough of Keyport, which were granted and judgment entered thereon. There was no motion on behalf of the defendant Heuser. From the judgment mentioned, appeal has been taken to this court, the Borough of Keyport had adopted an ordinance requiring sidewalks to be laid on Walnut street in that borough. Wallace, a property owner, was notified to construct a sidewalk in front of his premises, but refused to do so. The borough then proceeded to do the work itself and assessed the cost upon the property benefited, under an act concerning municipalities. P. L. 1917, p. 319, art, 25, at page 411, known as the Home Rule Act.
There was but a single issue presented by the pleadings and proofs, and that was as to the liability of the borough for injury directly to Mrs. Ansbro, and indirectly to Mr. Ansbro, in the prosecution of governmental work. The motion for nonsuit on behalf of both defendants was rested upon the ground that the grade stake was placed by the borough's engineer, at its direction, under authority of the ordinance mentioned, and because an action does not lie at the suit of an individual having suffered special damage, even from the neglect of a municipal corporation in the performance of a public duty. The judgment of nonsuit was clearly right.
In Waters v. Newark, 56 N. J. Law, 361, 28 A. 717, it was held that the neglect of a municipal corporation to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kelley v. Curtiss, A--623
...& A.1918), stating, as to negligence, that 'the common-law of liability is confined to active wrongdoing'; and Ansbro v. Wallace, 100 N.J.L. 391, 393, 126 A. 426 (E. & A.1924), holding active wrongdoing to be the 'only' exception to the rule of municipal immunity with respect to negligence.......
-
Milstrey v. City of Hackensack, A--52
...protected public bodies and their officers from a mistaken application of the principle of active wrongdoing, cf. Ansbro v. Wallace, 100 N.J.L. 391, 126 A. 426 (E. & A.1924), Callan v. Passaic, 104 N.J.L. 643, 141 A. 778 (E. & A.1928), Vickers v. City of Camden, supra, Truhlar v. Borough of......
-
Thompson v. Board of Ed., City of Millville, A--304
...imposed by law on its officers. The doctrine of Respondeat superior is not, in such circumstances, applicable. Ansbro v. Wallace, (100 N.J.L. 391, 126 A. 426) supra; Paterson v. Erie Railroad Co., 78 N.J.Law 592, 75 A. 922, 30 L.R.A., N.S., 209; Florio v. Jersey City, (101 N.J.L. 535, 129 A......
-
Allas v. Borough of Rumson
...may not be repaired by private action; the wrong is remediable only by indictment or presentment. Ansbro v. Wallace, 100 N. J. Law, 391, 126 A. 426; Buckalew v. Freeholders of Middlesex, 91 N. J. Law, 517, 104 A. 308, 310, 2 A. L. R. 718; Kehoe v. Rutherford, 74 N. J. Law, 659, 65 A. 1046, ......