Fitzpatrick v. Cumberland Glass Mfg. Co.
| Decision Date | 28 February 1898 |
| Citation | 61 N.J.L. 378,39 A. 675 |
| Parties | FITZPATRICK v. CUMBERLAND GLASS MFG. CO. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Action by Thomas Fitzpatrick, by his next friend, against the Cumberland Glass Manufacturing Company, to recover for personal injuries. Plaintiff had a verdict, and the trial court showed a rule to show cause why the verdict should not be set aside and a new trial granted. Rule made absolute, and new trial granted.
Argued November term, 1897. before MAGIE, C. J., and DEPUE, GUMMERE, and LUDLOW, JJ.
Thomas W. Trenchard and John W. Wescott, for plaintiff. Walter H. Bacon, for defendant.
This is an action brought to recover damages for personal injuries received by the plaintiff at the defendant company's glass works under the following circumstances: The plaintiff's father was an employé of the defendant company, and plaintiff (who was a boy 12 years of age) was accustomed to carry his father's dinner to him at the company's works. The evidence justifies the conclusion that this was done not only with the knowledge of, but by the permission of, the company. On the day upon which the plaintiff received his injuries he carried his father's dinner to the works as usual, and, as he passed through the main gateway, one of the gates, which had been allowed by the company to get out of repair, fell upon him, crushing his leg. These facts having been proved by the plaintiff, and not having been controverted by the defendant company, a verdict in his favor was rendered by the jury.
The chief question presented by this rule is whether the defendant, at the time of the injury, owed the plaintiff any duty with regard to keeping the entrance to its works safe for his ingress and egress. If it did, the jury properly found in favor of the plaintiff, but, if it did not, the verdict must be set aside; for, unless the plaintiff's injuries were the result of the neglect of duty on the part of the defendant, which it owed to him, no legal responsibility rests upon the defendant to compensate him for those injuries. The question of the liability of the owner of land for injuries received by a person entering thereon, by reason of the unsafe condition of the premises, came before the court of errors and appeals for determination in the late case of Phillips v. Library Co., 55 N. J. Law, 307, 27 Atl. 478. Mr. Justice Depue, who delivered the opinion of the court, after considering and discussing the cases on the subject,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
DeRobertis by DeRobertis v. Randazzo
...of action by guest of employee against lessor and holding that jury should determine status of guest); Fitzpatrick v. Glass Mfg. Co., 61 N.J.L. 378, 39 A. 675 (Sup.Ct.1898) (reversal of jury verdict for infant plaintiff injured at father's place of employment and new trial Although we share......
-
Brody v. Cudahy Packing Co.
... ... 535, ... 61 P.2d 891; Fitzpatrick v. Cumberland Glass Co ... (N.J.), 39 A. 675; Taylor v. Haddonfield & ... Village of ... Swanton (Vt.), 109 A. 855; Graham v. Pocasset Mfg ... Co. (Mass.), 107 N.E. 920; Murphy v. B. & M. R. R ... (Mass.), ... ...
-
Simmel v. New Jersey Coop. Co.
...N.J.L. 467 (Sup.Ct.1871); Turess v. N.Y. Susq. & West. R.R. Co., 61 N.J.L. 314, 40 A. 614 (Sup.Ct.1898); Fitzpatrick v. Cumberland Glass Mfg. Co., 61 N.J.L. 378, 39 A. 675 (Sup.Ct.1898); Delaware, L. & W.R.R. Co. v. Reich, 61 N.J.L. 635, 40 A. 682, 41 L.R.A. 831 (E. & A.1898); Friedman v. S......
-
Snyder v. I. Jay Realty Co., s. A--120
...has been held that the only duty which the tenant owed him was to abstain from acts wilfully injurious. Fitzpatrick v. Cumberland Glass Mfg. Co., 61 N.J.L. 378, 39 A. 675 (Sup.Ct.1898); O'Neill v. Gem Building and Loan Ass'n, 9 N.J.Misc. 1084, 156 A. 460 (Sup.Ct.1931); Willins v. Ludwig, 13......