Daddetto v. Barbiera.
| Decision Date | 03 August 1949 |
| Docket Number | No. A-336.,A-336. |
| Citation | 67 A.2d 691 |
| Parties | DADDETTO et al. v. BARBIERA. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Hudson County, Part VI.
Action by Dorothy Daddetto and Joseph Daddetto, her husband, against Peter Barbiera, for damages sustained when the firstnamed plaintiff fell through a piatform leading from the door of a bakery shop conducted by defendant on leased premises. From the judgment plaintiffs appeal.
Judgment affirmed.
Before Judges McGEEHAN, DONGES and COLIE.
Stephen Mongiello, Hoboken, argued the cause for appellants.
Maurice C. Brigadier, Jersey City, argued the cause for respondent (Ezra Nolan, Jersey City, attorney).
The opinion of the court was delivered by
McGEEHAN, S.J.A.D.
Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment in favor of the defendant, entered in the Hudson County District Court Part VI, after trial before the judge sitting without a jury.
The defendant was a lessee of premises in Hoboken, New Jersey, and conducted a bakery shop therein. Plaintiff Dorothy Daddetto entered the bakery shop of defendant and made a purchase of merchandise. As she was leaving the store, she stepped on the platform leading from the door to the sidewalk; a board collapsed and she fell through the floor, causing her injury. Plaintiff testified that after her fall she noticed that the wood underneath the floor appeared to be rotted. Defendant testified that the surface of the platform was in good condition; that prior to this accident he had no knowledge or notice that the beam underneath was rotted; and that he learned of the rotted condition of the beam for the first time after this accident.
The judge below found as a fact that the plaintiff failed to show that the defendant was guilty of any want of reasonable care in the keeping of his store; that the defendant had no knowledge of the defect and no notice thereof; and that a reasonable inspection by the defendant would not disclose the condition under the floor.
The law is fully settled in this state that a proprietor of a store is not an insurer, but is merely liable (1) for defects of which he knows, or (2) defects which have existed for so long a time that, by the exercise of reasonable care, he had both an opportunity to discover and to remedy. Thompson v. Giant Tiger Corp., 18 N.J.L. 10, 189 A. 649 (E. & A. 1937); Restatement, Torts, N.J.Annot., Sec. 343 (1940).
The plaintiffs contend that the court below was obliged...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. Sioux Bldg. Corp., 49135
...34 L.R.A.,N.S., 1077 (E. & A.1911); Thompson v. Giant Tiger Corp., 118 N.J.L. 10, 189 A. 649 (E. & A.1937); Daddetto v. Barbiera, 4 N.J.Super. 479, 67 A.2d 691 (App.Div.1949); Oelschlaeger v. Hahne & Co., 2 N.J. 490, 66 A.2d 861 (1949); Restatement, Torts, N.J.Anno., § 343 'It is within the......
-
Clayton v. New Dreamland Roller Skating Rink
...to constitute notice to the defendant and to show a want or reasonable care in failing to remedy the defect. Daddetto v. Barbiera, 4 N.J.Super. 479, 67 A.2d 691 (App.Div.1949), certif. denied, 3 N.J. 372, 70 A.2d 536 (1950); Oelschlaeger v. Hahne & Co., 2 N.J. 490, 66 A.2d 861 (1949); Resta......
-
Francisco v. Miller
...34 L.R.A.,N.S., 1077 (E. & A.1911); Thompson v. Giant Tiger Corp., 118 N.J.L. 10, 189 A. 649 (E. & A.1937); Daddetto v. Barbiera, 4 N.J.Super. 479, 67 A.2d 691 (App.Div.1949); Oelschlaeger v. Hahne & Co., 2 N.J. 490, 66 A.2d 861 (1949); Restatement, Torts, N.J. Anno., § 343 It is within the......
-
Simpson v. Duffy
...a time that, by the exercise of reasonable care, he had both an opportunity to discover and to remedy. Daddetto v. Barbiero, (Barbiera) 4 N.J.Super. 479, 67 A.2d 691 (App.Div.1949); Restatement, Torts, N.J.Anno. § 343 Proof of a fall alone would not be adequate to create an inference of neg......