Berardo v. Ambrozy
| Decision Date | 14 April 1942 |
| Docket Number | No. 406.,406. |
| Citation | 25 A.2d 538,128 N.J.L. 295 |
| Parties | BERARDO v. AMBROZY et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Appeal from Second District Court of Jersey City.
Action by Nicholas Berardo against Joseph Ambrozy and another for injuries sustained when the plaintiff slipped and fell on stairway which was under defendants' control. From an adverse judgment, defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
January term, 1942, before PARKER, DONGES, and COLIE, JJ.
George Gross, of Jersey City, for appellants.
Lester Lasker, of Jersey City, for respondent.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Second District Court of Jersey City entered after a trial before the judge of that court sitting without a jury. Defendants were the owners of an apartment house located at 175 St. Paul's Avenue, Jersey City, in which there was located a stairway leading to apartments in the premises. Admittedly this stairway was under the control of the defendants. On the 8th of February, 1940, plaintiff entered the building and ascended the stairway for the purpose of delivering a chicken to a tenant on an upper floor. On the way down the stairway, according to his testimony, he suffered a fall and sustained the injuries for which this suit was brought.
It appears in the state of case as settled by the trial court that plaintiff testified that he "noticed that there was a big layer of wax on the step from which he had fallen and he observed a foot mark in the wax." He testified that all of the steps were waxed. The defendant Joseph Ambrozy testified that he was in the habit of putting wax on the linoleum covering the steps of the stairway about once a month and that he washed the stairway every week. He used a liquid wax. An expert witness testified on behalf of the defendants that liquid wax was commonly used, that it could be applied without a machine, and that it dries after a few minutes. On cross-examination he testified that whether or not any slipperiness resulted depended upon the expertness of the person applying the wax.
Defendants-appellants contend that it was error to deny the motion to nonsuit and to deny the motion for a directed verdict in their favor, because there was no evidence of negligence on their part to raise a question of fact. The cases cited, such as Schnatterer v. Bamberger, 81 N.J.L. 558, 79 A. 324, 34 L.R.A., N.S, 1077, Ann. Cas.1912D, 139, concerning notice to the landlord or proof of the existence of a condition for sufficient length of time...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Overby v. Union Laundry Co., A--600
...v. Glatzel, 147 A. 652, 7 N.J.Misc. 1006 (Sup.Ct.1929); McGee v. Kraft, 110 N.J.L. 532, 166 A. 80 (E. & A.1933); Berardo v. Ambrozy, 128 N.J.L. 295, 25 A.2d 538 (Sup.Ct.1942); Burdge v. Retail Department Stores of America, Inc., 129 N.J.L. 228, 29 A.2d 139 (Sup.Ct.1942), affirmed 130 N.J.L.......
-
Gill v. Krassner
...create a hazard for the users * * *.' See also Huddleson v. Lerman, 8 N.J.Super. 144, 73 A.2d 596 (App.Div.1950); Berardo v. Ambrozy, 128 N.J.L. 295, 25 A.2d 538 (Sup.Ct.1942); Burdge v. Retail Department Stores, 129 N.J.L. 228, 29 A.2d 139 (Sup.Ct.1942), affirmed 130 N.J.L. 81, 31 A.2d 778......
-
Burdge v. Retail Dep't Stores of Am., Inc.
...and fell; that on this spot the oil had been more copiously applied than on the rest of the floor in that area. Compare Berardo v. Ambrozy, 128 N.J.L. 295, 25 A.2d 538. And this state of fact permits the inference that the application of the oil was uneven and in this posture it was for the......
-
McGuire v. Valley Nat. Bank of Phoenix, 7057
...must ordinarily show that the foreign substance is the result of the act of the landlord or his agents, e. g. Berardo v. Ambrozy, 128 N.J.L. 295, 25 A.2d 538 (1942), or that it has been in existence for a sufficient length of time prior to the injury for the landlord, in the exercise of rea......