Dolan v. Goodman Warehouse Corp.

• Decision Date: 03 March 1933
• Docket Number: No. 30.,30.
• Citation: 165 A. 82
• Parties: DOLAN et al. v. GOODMAN WAREHOUSE CORPORATION.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

165 A. 82

DOLAN et al.

v. GOODMAN WAREHOUSE CORPORATION.

No. 30.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

March 3, 1933.

Proof indicated that warehouse was modern and well constructed; that fire of incendiary origin occasioned plaintiffs' loss; that loss was occasioned by fire which started at some distance from place where certain films were stored, there being no evidence that there was spontaneous combustion of films; and there was no evidence that improper storage of any goods in warehouse was proximate cause of injury suffered by plaintiffs, all proofs indicating the contrary.

Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Hudson County.

Action by Hannah G. Dolan and another against the Goodman Warehouse Corporation. From a judgment in favor of plaintiffs, defendant appeals.

Reversed.

Argued October term, 1932, before BODINE and DONGES, JJ.

Arthur T. Vanderbilt, of Newark, for appellant.

George E. Cutley, of Jersey City, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiffs warehoused with the defendant for hire household goods. A fire occurred in its warehouse, the goods were damaged, and the present action was brought to recover damages because of the alleged negligent storage of the same. The defendant should have prevailed on its motion for a directed verdict.

The principles of law applicable to the case as tried are stated in Kittay v. Cordasco, 103 N. J. Law, 156, 134 A. 667, and Armstrong Rubber Co. v. Erie R. Co., 103 N. J. Law, 579, 137 A. 596. It was held in those cases that the inference of negligence, because of the failure to return the goods, may be answered by proof of circumstances attending the loss and if this proof, and all the other circumstances of the case, establishes beyond question that there is no evidence from which the jury might properly find negligence on the part of the bailee, he would be entitled at the hands of the court to a directed verdict.

The proofs in this case indicate that the warehouse was modern and well constructed. Certain films, seized by the prosecutor of Hudson county, had been stored in the warehouse. A fire of incendiary origin occasioned plaintiffs' loss. There is no proof that there was spontaneous combustion of the films. In fact, the proofs indicate that the loss was occasioned by the fire, which started at some distance from the place where the films were stored. The evidence that there was a requirement of the Jersey City fire department that films be stored in steel vaults with a thermostatic heat control...