Carr v. Riskin

• Decision Date: 20 August 1930
• Docket Number: No. 38.,38.
• Citation: Carr v. Riskin, 8 N.J.Misc. 659, 151 A. 380 (N.J. 1930)
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
• Parties: BELLE A. CARR, PLAINTIFF, v. NOCKEM RISKIN ET AL., DEFENDANTS

151 A. 380

CARR

v. RISKIN et al.

No. 38.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Aug. 20, 1930.

Suit by Belle A. Carr against Nockem Riskin and others.Verdict for plaintiff.On defendants' rule to show cause why verdict should not be set aside.

Rule absolute.

Argued January term, 1930, before GUMMERE, C. J., and CAMPBELL, J.

J. W. & E. A. De Yoe, of Paterson, for the rule.

Ward & McGinnis, of Paterson, opposed.

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff brought suit to recover compensation for injuries received by her resulting from a fall in front of a building which, as she claimed, was owned by the defendants.The basis of her action is that the pavement along which she was walking when she fell was in a very dilapidated condition, making it dangerous to foot passengers, particularly in the evening; that being the time of day when she stumbled and fell.The exact location of the defective pavement, according to the testimony of the plaintiff, was where a driveway crossed the sidewalk and proceeded to the rear of the defendants' property.The fact that the flagstones on this driveway were in a dilapidated condition and to some extent dangerous to persons walking along the street was shown by a preponderance of the evidence, and most of the testimony was devoted to this phase of the case.The trial resulted in a verdict in her favor, and a rule to show cause was allowed to the defendants.After the allowance of the rule the defendants learned that two men, who had been sitting in an automobile which had been parked on the street about opposite to where the plaintiff fell, told a friend of the defendants that ...