Doherty v. Trenton Trust Co., A--576

• Decision Date: 16 November 1956
• Docket Number: No. A--576,A--576
• Citation: 42 N.J.Super. 398,126 A.2d 899
• Parties: Helen M. DOHERTY and John J. Doherty, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. TRENTON TRUST COMPANY, a banking corporation of New Jersey, Defendant-Respondent. . Appellate Division
• Court: New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division

Page 398

42 N.J.Super. 398

126 A.2d 899

Helen M. DOHERTY and John J. Doherty, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. TRENTON TRUST COMPANY, a banking corporation of New Jersey Defendant-Respondent.

No. A--576.

Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division.

Argued Oct. 29, 1956.

Decided Nov. 16, 1956.

Harry A. Walsh, Jersey City, argued the cause for plaintiffs-appellants.

Richard J. S. Barlow, Jr., Trenton, argued the cause for defendant-respondent (Lenox, Giordano & Lenox, Trenton, attorneys).

Before Judges GOLDMANN, FREUND and CONFORD.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

FREUND, J.A.D.

The plaintiffs, Helen M. Doherty and John J. Doherty, appeal from a judgment of involuntary dismissal entered by the trial judge at the close of their case tried before a jury.

The testimony discloses that Mrs. Doherty, an employee in the State Division of Employment Security, slipped and fell on the wet floor of a first floor corridor in the defendant's building leased to the Division for its main offices. The accident occurred at about 11:45 A.M. on August 14, 1953, while Mrs. Doherty was on an errand from her office, about two blocks away, to a Division office in the defendant's building. It had been raining heavily since before 9 A.M. She entered the building, passed through a vestibule and a lobby, the floor of which was partially covered by a rubber mat, and then proceeded into the corridor beyond, where she fell. She had noticed that the corridor was 'slippery and wet, unusually slippery, and it had a glassy-like finish, a highly polished finish, and it was very wet,' and accordingly she used care in walking. She testified that she had previously visited the building in inclement weather and the floors were 'always very slippery'; they were waxed and highly polished asphalt tile, but on this occasion were more slippery than usual because of the rain. When asked what caused her fall, she testified that it was 'the slippery condition of the floor with wax or with the water on the waxed floor.' It was after walking some distance along the corridor that she slipped and fell, sustaining injuries.

Mrs. Leah M. Wittmer, a receptionist, testified that her normal post was at a desk in the lobby, but that she was absent because of illness at the time of plaintiff's accident; that when it rained or snowed, people tracked water from outside the building into the vestibule and beyond into the lobby and corridor. On many occasions she had seen people slip in the wet corridor, two actually fell; that she had called this condition to the attention of the building superintendent. Another witness testified to the wet and slippery condition of the corridor floor at the time the plaintiff fell, and that she herself had once fallen there.

There was testimony that the corridor was poorly lighted, the only light coming from over the partitions of adjacent offices; that there was a ridge in the floor of the corridor about 10 or 15 feet from the place where the plaintiff fell, and that on the morning of the accident 200 or more people had passed through the corridor. Additionally, there was expert testimony by a chemist with experience in safety engineering that an asphalt tile floor is not of itself particularly slippery and that water on its surface does not substantially increase its slipperiness; but that if the asphalt tile is first waxed and then water accumulates on its surface, it becomes like ice. He further testified that under such conditions floors should be covered 'to protect the people who would be walking along' and that the ridge might have had some effect on the plaintiff's fall by causing a change of pace upon a slippery surface.

At this juncture, the defendant moved for an involuntary dismissal on the grounds that there was no proof of negligence on its part and that Mrs. Doherty had assumed the risk involved in walking along the corridor since she had observed its slippery condition before venturing into it. The trial court ruled that the question of negligence was properly for the jury, but that assumption of risk should be found as a matter of law, and on that ground granted the motion for dismissal. From the judgment, the plaintiffs appeal, arguing that both the question of negligence and of assumption of risk were for the jury.

It is a settled rule of law that the owner of premises to which the public is invited for business purposes, owes a duty to exercise reasonable care to see that one who enters his premises upon that invitation has a reasonably safe place to do that which is within the scope of the invitation. Picariello v. Linares and Rescigno Bank, 127 N.J.L. 63, 21 A.2d 343 (Sup.Ct. 1941), affirmed o.b., 127 N.J.L. 565, 23 A.2d 396 (E. & A.1942); Brody v. Albert Lifson & Sons, 17 N.J. 383, 111 A.2d 504 (1955). In the Brody case, which involved an action to recover for injuries sustained from a fall on a wet terrazzo floor, the court found that there was evidence from which the jury could...