Crammer v. Willston Operating Co.
| Decision Date | 16 May 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. A--39,A--39 |
| Citation | 88 A.2d 630,19 N.J.Super. 489 |
| Parties | CRAMMER et al. v. WILLSTON OPERATING CO., Inc. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
Leonard Widman, Asbury Park, argued the cause for the appellant (George S. Skokos, Asbury Park, attorney).
Joseph F. Mattice, Asbury Park, argued the cause for the respondents.
Before Judges EASTWOOD, BIGELOW and FRANCIS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
BIGELOW, J.A.D.
The plaintiff Shirley Crammer, 17 years old, and another girl, accompanied by their mothers, visited the defendant's roller skating rink one evening early in 1950. As the two girls were skating, hand in hand, a young man, coming rapidly from in back of them, skated between the two girls and they were both thrown to the ground. The plaintiff's nose was fractured and several of her front teeth broken off. In this suit against the company which operates the rink, the district court awarded to the young girl damages of $250 and to her father for medical expenses $150. Defendant urges that the judgment be reversed because the evidence did not establish that it was negligent or that its negligence was the proximate cause of the injury.
A person who invites others to come upon his premises is under a duty to exercise reasonable care for their protection. His duty extends to protection against the acts of third persons if he ought reasonably to have anticipated the occurrence. Exton v. Central R.R. Co., 42 A. 486, 56 L.R.A. 508, 62 N.J.L. 7 (Sup.Ct.1898), affirmed 63 N.J.L. 356, 46 A. 1099, 56 L.R.A. 508 (E. & A.1899); Bango v. Carteret Lions Club, 12 N.J.Super. 52, 79 A.2d 57 (App.Div.1951), certification denied 7 N.J. 347, 81 A.2d 522 (1951). The plaintiff specifies as negligence that the defendant failed to have enough attendants or guards on duty, and that those on duty were not alert enough.
The plaintiff and her witnesses testified that the rink was crowded and the skating very fast; that the guards had to slow the skaters down, and that there were some acts bordering on rowdyism. The attendant in charge 'cautioned certain individuals prior to the incident' which occasioned the litigation. When plaintiff was thrown to the floor and injured, no attendant came to her assistance till five minutes had passed. The defendant presented proof that on the evening in question 249 patrons had been admitted, and that there were approximately 200 people on the premises at the time of the accident. That in the 'trade' one guard for every 100 skaters is customary, but...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Goldberg v. Housing Authority of City of Newark
...additional protection. It is axiomatic that better policing would have acted as a deterrent. Cf. Crammer v. Willston Operating Co., Inc., 19 N.J.Super. 489, 88 A.2d 630 (App.Div.1952).' The Appellate Division called the project 'a city within a city.' The description may be apt in terms of ......
-
Clohesy v. Food Circus Supermarkets, Inc.
...133 N.J.L. 218, 219 (Sup.Ct.1945); Reilly v. 180 Club, Inc., 14 N.J.Super. 420, 424 (App. Div.1951); Crammer v. Willston Operating Co., Inc., 19 N.J.Super. 489, 490 (App. Div.1952); Becker v. Newark, 72 N.J.Super. 355, 358 [178 A.2d 364] (App. Div. 1962); cf. Neering v. Illinois Central R.R......
-
Mayer v. Housing Authority of Jersey City, A--653
...43 A.2d 828 (Sup.Ct.1945); Reilly v. 180 Club Inc., 14 N.J.Super. 420, 82 A.2d 210 (App.Div.1951); Crammer v. Willston Operating Co., Inc., 19 N.J.Super. 489, 88 A.2d 630 (App.Div.1952); Klinksy v. Hanson Van Winkle Munning Co., 38 N.J.Super. 439, 448, 119 A.2d 166 (App.Div.1955), certifica......
-
Nigido v. First Nat. Bank of Baltimore
...459, 68 S.Ct. 140, 92 L.Ed. 73 (1947); Neering v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 383 Ill. 366, 50 N.E.2d 497 (1943); Crammer v. Willston Operating Co., 19 N.J.Super. 489, 88 A.2d 630 (1952); Williams v. Essex Amusement Corp., 133 N.J.L. 218, 43 A.2d 828 (1945); Exton v. Central R. Co. of New Jersey......