Cleary v. Meyer Bros, 1.
Decision Date | 10 January 1935 |
Docket Number | No. 1.,1. |
Citation | 176 A. 187 |
Parties | CLEARY et al. v. MEYER BROS. |
Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
Where the evidence, with all fair and legitimate inferences arising therefrom, is insufficient to sustain a verdict for the plaintiff, which would be set aside, if rendered, the court should direct a verdict for the defendant.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Passaic County.
Action by Frances Cleary and husband against Meyer Brothers, a corporation. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant appeals.
Judgment reversed.
George F. Lahey, Jr., of Newark, for appellant.
Seufert & Elmore, of Englewood, for respondents.
Suit was instituted by the plaintiffs, who are husband and wife, for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by the wife, through the negligence of the defendant, and this appeal brings up for review a judgment based upon the jury's verdict which awarded the wife $1,000, and the husband $500.
The facts show that on August 9, 1929, the plaintiff Frances Cleary entered the department store conducted by the defendant in Paterson, N. J., and after making a purchase, had occasion to visit the ladies' rest room. The entrance to the rest room consisted of two swinging doors, in front of which was a step about 8 inches higher than the outside floor, the outer edge of the step being approximately 24 inches from the base of the doors. When leaving the room and passing through the entrance, Mrs. Cleary fell, and as a result sustained a fractured wrist.
The defendant contends that the trial court erred in refusing to nonsuit and to direct a verdict in its favor.
The complaint alleges "that the said fall of the plaintiff, Frances Cleary, was caused by the improper location, construction and maintenance of the doors and steps forming the exit from said rest room," and that and further that "the defendant failed and neglected to maintain a guard at said exit, to protect its patrons and business invitees from injury."
The record indicates that Mrs. Cleary was the only witness produced on behalf of the plaintiffs to support the allegations contained in the complaint; and we do not find that her testimony established any facts from which negligence might be reasonably inferred, or to show that the defendant had violated its duty toward the plaintiff, who was an invitee, to exercise ordinary care to render the premises reasonably safe for the purpose for which she entered. Her version of the conditions which existed and the circumstances relating to the happening is best illustrated by quoting her testimony in part:
There was also admitted in evidence, with out objection, a statement signed by Mrs. Cleary a few days after the accident, which reads in part: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mortgage Corp. of N. J. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co.
...Surety Co., 89 F.2d 885 (2d Cir. 1937), certiorari denied, 302 U.S. 725, 58 S.Ct. 47, 82 L.Ed. 560 (1937). Cf. Cleary v. Meyer Bros., 114 N.J.L. 120, 124, 176 A. 187 (E. & A.1935); I. Hausman & Sons, Inc., v. Central Home Trust Co., 118 N.J.L. 104, 109, 191 A. 301 (E. & A.1937); Esposito v.......
-
Clayton v. New Dreamland Roller Skating Rink
...288, (Sup.Ct.1948). In the Esposito case, it was held: 'Negligence is never presumed. It is a fact that must be shown. Cleary v. Meyer Bros., 114 N.J.L. 120, 176 A. 187. On a motion for nonsuit and for a directed verdict for the defendant the rule of procedure is well established that 'The ......
-
Reese v. Piedmont, Inc.
...Boyle v. Preketes, 262 Mick. 629, 247 N.W. 763; Dickson v. Emporium Mercantile Co., Inc., 193 Minn. 629, 259 N.W. 375; Cleary v. Meyer Bros., 114 N.J.L. 120, 176 A. 187; Haddon v. Snellenburg, 293 Pa. 333, 143 A. 8; Matson v. Tip Top Grocery Co., 151 Fla. 247, 9 So.2d Plaintiff's counsel ca......
-
Smith v. Vincent
...Ala. 416, 78 So. 794, L.R.A.1918F, 137; Dickson v. Emporium Mercantile Co., Inc., 1935, 193 Minn. 629, 259 N.W. 375; Cleary v. Meyer Bros., 1935, 114 N.J.L. 120, 176 A. 187; Garrett v. W. S. Butterfield Theatres, Inc., 1933, 261 Mich. 262, 246 N. W. In a case decided March 25, 1952 (reheari......