Cooper v. Reinhardt
| Decision Date | 18 February 1918 |
| Citation | 103 A. 24,91 N.J.Law 402 |
| Parties | COOPER v. REINHARDT. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Appeal from District Court, Bergen County, Third District.
Action by J. C. Cooper against Charles W Reinhardt. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Argued November term, 1917, before SWAYZE, TRENCHARD, and MINTURN, JJ.
Mackay & Mackay, of Hackensack, for appellant. W. J. Morrison, Jr., of Ridgefleld Park, for appellee.
On March 5, 1917, the plaintiff below, while leaving the barroom of the defendant's hotel where he had purchased some beer, slipped on a coating of ice which, during the time the plaintiff was in the barroom, had formed on the entrance platform and steps. He fell to the ground, breaking two ribs. The district court judge, who sat without a jury, gave judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant appeals. We are of the opinion that the judgment must be affirmed.
We think it was open to the trial judge to find, as he did, that the defendant was negligent. The plaintiff visited the barroom of the defendant's hotel in compliance with the hitter's implied invitation, and it was the defendant's duty to use ordinary care to render his premises reasonably safe for the purpose. McCracken v. Meyers, 75 N. J. Law, 935, 68 Atl. 805, 16 L. R. A. (N. S.) 290.
Now, there was testimony from which the trial judge, if he saw fit, might find the following matters of fact: The plaintiff entered the defendant's premises about 3:30 p. m. The entrance was by means of six steps and a platform leading to the barroom door. It had been snowing, and snow and slush were on the steps and platform. About that time it stopped snowing and grew colder. The defendant knew that the platform and steps needed cleaning, and had caused them to be cleaned about 3 p. m., before the plaintiff entered. Nothing further was done in the way of cleaning or caring for them until 5:45 p. m., when the hotel porter again began to clean them. The defendant himself describes what then occurred. He says, About 7 p. m. the plaintiff started to leave the premises, and slipped on a coating of frozen snow or ice and fell. The testimony also tended to show that the snow and slush which were there when plaintiff entered had not been removed. This testimony justifies the finding of the trial judge that the defendant failed to use...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bates v. Valley Fair Enterprises, Inc.
...safe. Nelson, supra, at p. 305, 137 A.2d 599. She had the right to assume that it had performed this duty. Cooper v. Reinhardt, 91 N.J.L. 402, 404, 103 A. 24 (Sup.Ct.1918). Yet some degree of observation was required of her. She knew that it had snowed the week before and again on the day b......
-
Parmenter v. Jarvis Drug Store, Inc.
...inference of knowledge or imputable notice was apparently lacking there. The discussion in the Bodine opinion of Cooper v. Reinhardt, 91 N.J.L. 402, 103 A. 24 (Sup.Ct.1918), and the reconciliation therein of that decision with Schnatterer v. Bamberger, 81 N.J.L. 558, 79 A. 324, 34 L.R.A.,N.......
-
Krackomberger v. Vornado, Inc.
...maintain the aisle in a reasonably safe condition. Finnegan v. Goerke Co., Supra, 106 N.J.L. at 62, 147 A. 442; Cooper v. Reinhardt, 91 N.J.L. 402, 404, 103 A. 24 (S.Ct.1918). Cf. Bates v. Valley Fair Enterprises, Inc., 86 N.J.Super. 1, 7--9, 205 A.2d 746 (App.Div.1964). Her right to assume......
- Gray v. Martino