Finnegan v. Goerke Co., No. 6.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
Writing for the CourtWALKER, Chancellor
Citation147 A. 442
PartiesFINNEGAN v. GOERKE CO.
Docket NumberNo. 6.
Decision Date14 October 1929
147 A. 442

FINNEGAN
v.
GOERKE CO.

No. 6.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

Oct. 14, 1929.


(Syllabus by the Court.)

Appeal from Supreme Court.

Action by Bridget Finnegan against the Goerke Company. To review a judgment of nonsuit, plaintiff brings error. Reversed for new trial.

John W. McGeehan, Jr., of Newark, for appellant.

John A. Matthews, of Newark, for defendant.

WALKER, Chancellor. This cause was tried in the Supreme Court, Essex Circuit, before a jury. The plaintiff-appellant sued for damages caused to her by a fall on a rattan box in an aisle in the department store of defendant company; resting on the floor and flush against the end of the counter which she was passing; she injured her knee and had a verdict for the damages resulting thereto. The trial judge nonsuited the plaintiff, and she has sued out a writ of error to this court.

The facts were shortly these: Mrs. Finnegan was a prospective customer in the department store of the defendant; she went to the defendant's store to look at or purchase some cretonne; on the floor of the store where the goods were, was a counter at the end of which was a rattan box about 3 feet long, 1 1/2 feet high, and 15 inches wide, flush against the end of the counter. While walking toward the cretonne display, she alleges that she struck this box with her foot and fell, striking and injuring her knee, as already stated. At the completion of the plaintiff's case a motion for nonsuit was made by the defendant on five grounds: (1) No testimony of negligence on the part of defendant; (2) no testimony that plaintiff did not look where she was going; (3) no evidence of nuisance; (4) no evidence that box was negligently placed; (5) no evidence that defendant did not keep it in reasonably safe condition.

147 A. 443

The court remarked that the only question he was faced with was the placing of the box and whether that would be negligence; that it did not seem to him that there was any negligence to be charged against the defendant for placing the box in that position; it was open to plain view, and he did not think it negligence because some one might hit it, and granted the motion on that ground only.

The defendant contends in limine that the judgment entered upon the nonsuit and brought up for review should be affirmed if correct upon any legal ground, although the reason advanced by the court below be erroneous. And this is so. See Marinette Knitting Mills v. Rosenthal, 102 N. J....

To continue reading

Request your trial
33 practice notes
  • Farley v. Portland Gas & Coke Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oregon
    • March 2, 1955
    ...Judgment was reversed for want of evidence as to who [203 Or. 651] placed the boxes in the aisle.); Finnegan v. Goerke Co., 106 N.J.L. 59, 147 A. 442 (large box placed in aisle outside counter of department store. Plaintiff's view obscured by other shoppers.); Griffin v. Cascade Theatres Co......
  • Mead v. Wiley Methodist Episcopal Church, Nos. A--637
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division
    • November 28, 1952
    ...testimony which, if believed by the jury, will sustain the verdict, the court will not set it aside. Finnegan v. Goerke Co., 106 N.J.L. 59, 147 A. 442 (E. & We direct that the taxed costs of the fifth trial assessed as a part of the judgments under review be deducted. Otherwise, the judgmen......
  • Gentile v. Public Service Coordinated Transport, No. A--729
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division
    • February 13, 1951
    ...at issue should be submitted to the jury. Bennett v. Busch, 75 N.J.L. 240, 67 A. 188 (Sup.Ct.1907); Finnegan v. Goerke Co., 106 N.J.L. 59, 147 A. 442 (E. & A.1929); Lipschitz v. New York and N.J. Produce Corp., 111 N.J.L. 392, 168 A. 390 (E. & A.1933); Repasky v. Novich, 113 N.J.L. 126, 172......
  • Berger v. Shapiro, No. A--101
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • June 1, 1959
    ...supra, § 332, a 'business visitor,' and is owed a greater duty of care than a licensee. In Finnegan v. The Goerke Co., 106 N.J.L. 59, 147 A. 442 (E. & A. 1929), it was held that a customer in the store of the defendant was an invitee or business visitor to whom the defendant owed a duty to ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
33 cases
  • Farley v. Portland Gas & Coke Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oregon
    • March 2, 1955
    ...Judgment was reversed for want of evidence as to who [203 Or. 651] placed the boxes in the aisle.); Finnegan v. Goerke Co., 106 N.J.L. 59, 147 A. 442 (large box placed in aisle outside counter of department store. Plaintiff's view obscured by other shoppers.); Griffin v. Cascade Theatres Co......
  • Mead v. Wiley Methodist Episcopal Church, Nos. A--637
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division
    • November 28, 1952
    ...testimony which, if believed by the jury, will sustain the verdict, the court will not set it aside. Finnegan v. Goerke Co., 106 N.J.L. 59, 147 A. 442 (E. & We direct that the taxed costs of the fifth trial assessed as a part of the judgments under review be deducted. Otherwise, the judgmen......
  • Gentile v. Public Service Coordinated Transport, No. A--729
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division
    • February 13, 1951
    ...at issue should be submitted to the jury. Bennett v. Busch, 75 N.J.L. 240, 67 A. 188 (Sup.Ct.1907); Finnegan v. Goerke Co., 106 N.J.L. 59, 147 A. 442 (E. & A.1929); Lipschitz v. New York and N.J. Produce Corp., 111 N.J.L. 392, 168 A. 390 (E. & A.1933); Repasky v. Novich, 113 N.J.L. 126, 172......
  • Berger v. Shapiro, No. A--101
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • June 1, 1959
    ...supra, § 332, a 'business visitor,' and is owed a greater duty of care than a licensee. In Finnegan v. The Goerke Co., 106 N.J.L. 59, 147 A. 442 (E. & A. 1929), it was held that a customer in the store of the defendant was an invitee or business visitor to whom the defendant owed a duty to ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT