Ford v. Jersey Cent. Power & Light Co.
| Citation | 166 A. 490 |
| Decision Date | 24 May 1933 |
| Docket Number | No. 182.,182. |
| Parties | FORD et al. v. JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT CO. et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
The proofs examined fall short of indicating liability for a defect in a sidewalk.
Appeal from Supreme Court.
Action by Laura Ford and another against the Jersey Central Power & Light Company and others. From a judgment of nonsuit, plaintiffs appeal.
Affirmed.
See, also, 154 A. 869, 9 N. J. Misc. 476.
Milton M. Unger and Leonard J. Emmerglick, both of Newark, for appellants.
Walter L. McDermott, of Jersey City, and Henry D. Brinley, of Red Bank, for Jersey Central Power & Light Co.
Smith & Slingerland, of Newark, for New Jersey Bell Telephone Co.
Coult, Satz & Tomlinson and DeVoe Tomlinson, all of Newark, for Frederick W. Greger.
The plaintiff sought to recover damages for injuries sustained in a fall due to an alleged declivity in the gravel adjoining a concrete sidewalk in front of the defendant Greger's premises in Seaside Park. It appears that some years before a pole carrying electric light wires had leaned dangerously and had been removed at Greger's request. Assuming that the proofs do show that it was removed by the Jersey Central Power and Light Company, there is nothing to indicate that any act of its was the proximate cause of the injury. The removal was lawful, and the proofs do not indicate that the work was improperly done. At the time of the accident, some three years after the removal, there was a declivity in the gravel adjoining the sidewalk and a slight break in the cemented portion of the sidewalk. The witnesses called differ in their description of the circumference and depth of the place where the accident occurred. Assuming, however, that the declivity was where the pole had stood, there is nothing to show when the declivity occurred, or that it was due to the failure to properly fill the place where the pole had stood. No witness was called to describe the condition of the place immediately after the completion of the removal or what the condition had been during the intervening years.
The landowner is liable for faulty construction of a sidewalk, but not for disrepair due to the wear and tear of the elements. Glass v. American Stores Co., 110 N. J. Law, 152,164 A. 305. As to the landowner, the evidence discloses nothing more than disrepair due to wear and tear....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stewart v. 104 Wallace Street, Inc.
...dangerous construction of a sidewalk if either he or his predecessors in title built the sidewalk. E. g., Ford v. Jersey Central Power & Light Co., 111 N.J.L. 112, 113, 166 A. 490 (E. & A 1933); Braelow v. Klein, 100 N.J.L. 156, 158, 125 A. 103 (E. & A. 1924); Mount v. Recka, 35 N.J.Super. ......
-
Nash v. Lerner
...his or her predecessors in title built the sidewalk. Stewart, supra, 87 N.J. at 152, 432 A.2d 881; Ford v. Jersey Central Power & Light Co., 111 N.J.L. 112, 113, 166 A. 490 (E. & A.1933); Mount v. Recka, 35 N.J.Super. 374, 381, 114 A.2d 289 (App.Div.1955). Further, a landowner is liable for......
-
Mount v. Recka, A--159
...the abutting owner responsible in the absence of some wrongful act of his own. Rupp v. Burgess, supra; Ford v. Jersey Central Power, etc., Co., 111 N.J.L. 112, 166 A. 490 (E. & A.1933); Murphy v. Fair Oaks Sanatorium, 127 N.J.L. 255, 21 A.2d 806 (E. & A.1941); Moskowitz v. Herman, supra. Co......
-
la Freda v. Woodward
...166; Braelow v. Klein, 100 N.J.L. 156, 125 A. 103; Glass v. American Stores Co., 110 N.J.L. 152, 164 A. 305; Ford v. Jersey Central Power, etc., Co., 111 N.J.L. 112, 166 A. 490. See, also, McKeown v. King, 99 N.J.L. 251, 122 A. In this view, there is no occasion to determine whether the evi......