Finnegan v. The Goerke Company

• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: WALKER, CHANCELLOR.
• Citation: Finnegan v. The Goerke Company, 147 A. 442, 106 N.J.L. 59 (N.J. 1929)
• Decision Date: 14 October 1929
• Docket Number: 6
• Parties: BRIDGET FINNEGAN, APPELLANT, v. THE GOERKE COMPANY, A CORPORATION, RESPONDENT

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.

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. Law, 128, 130 A. 626; Somers Lumber Co. v. Kaufman, 102 N. J. Law, 601, 133 A. 200. But, in our judgment, the nonsuit was indefensible upon any of the grounds on which the motion was rested.

The plaintiff was invited by the defendant to visit its store as a prospective customer. She was therefore an invitee, and this court held in Kappertz v. The Jerseyman, 98 N. J. Law, 836, 121 A. 718, that one who invites another upon his premises owes the invitee a duty not only to exercise ordinary care to render the premises reasonably safe for the purposes for which the invitee entered, hut to abstain from any act which may make the invitee's use of the premises dangerous. With this principle of law in view, let us now examine the testimony before the trial court pertinent to the issue.

...