Fryer v. Mount Holly Water Co.
| Decision Date | 29 March 1915 |
| Citation | 87 N.J.L. 57,93 A. 679 |
| Parties | FRYER et al. v. MOUNT HOLLY WATER CO. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Action by Grace Fryer, by her next friend, and another, against the Mount Holly Water Company. On motion to strike out answer. Motion granted in part.
Argued February term, 1915, before TRENCHARD, BERGEN, and BLACK, JJ.
Davis & Davis, of Camden, for plaintiff. V. Claude Palmer, of Mt. Holly, for defendant.
This action was brought to recover damages which Grace Fryer, an infant, suffered because, as she alleges, the defendant, engaged in the business of furnishing water for domestic use, and for a consideration undertaking to supply water which would be reasonably pure and wholesome, negligently performed its undertaking so that she contracted a disease resulting from the furnishing of impure water, and also by William S. Fryer, her father, as joint complainant, for the loss of the services of his daughter, and for money expended to restore her to health. That part of the complaint which relates to the claim of the father is as follows:
"And thereupon the said defendant was under a duty to furnish the said William S. Fryer and his family water which would be reasonably pure and wholesome and fit for domestic purposes, and reasonably free from pollution, filth, and infection, so that persons using said water for drinking and domestic purposes should not contract disease therefrom"
—and claiming damages for the loss of the services of his daughter, and money expended to restore her to health, because of the neglect of the defendant to furnish reasonably pure and wholesome water, which resulted in the contraction by the daughter of typhoid fever therefrom. To so much of the complaint as relates to the claim of the father, the defendant replied by denying that it was the duty of the defendant to furnish reasonably pure and wholesome water, in the words of the averment of duty set out in the complaint, and, second, that the action was barred by the statute of limitations. The defendant moves to strike out the foregoing answers. As to the first answer objected to, the declaration contains a superfluous statement concerning the duty of the defendant, and the answer denies that the duties set up in the complaint existed, which was an unnecessary averment; all the plaintiff was bound to do was to state facts which permit the inference of a lawful duty, and the presence in the complaint of an averment that a duty...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schnebly v. Baker
...v. Hutner, supra, is 'a moe logical rule'). The New Jersey court formerly held as Illinois appellate courts hold. Fryer v. Mount Holly Water Co., 87 N.J.L. 57, 93 A. 679. But the Fryer case was overruled in Rex v. Hutner, supra, 26 N.J. 489, 140 A.2d 753. The New York court also formerly to......
-
Higgins v. Schneider
...to recover damages for loss of services and medical expenses resulting from an injury to his minor child. Fryer v. Mount Holly Water Co., 87 N.J.L. 57, 93 A. 679 (Sup.Ct.1915); Wagner v. Machetto, 7 N.J.Super. 547, 72 A.2d 425 (Cty.Ct.1950); Whalen v. Young, 28 N.J.Super. 543, 101 A.2d 64 (......
-
Cliff v. Seligman & Latz
...29 A. L. R. 1547; Kepner v. U. S., 195 U. S. 100, 124, 24 S. Ct. 797, 49 L. Ed. 114, 1 Ann. Cas. 655. See, also, Fryer v. Mt. Holly Water Co., 87 N. J. Law, 57, 59, 93 A. 679. We are aware that courts in other jurisdictions (Blackwell v. Railroad Co., 124 Tenn. 516, 520, 137 S. W. 486; Mull......
-
Rex v. Hutner
...456 (App.Ct.1925); Grof v. City Transit Co., 220 Ind. 249, 41 N.E.2d 941 (Sup.Ct.1942). Appellant relies upon Fryer v. Mount Holly Water Co., 87 N.J.L. 57, 93 A. 679 (Sup.Ct.1915); Wagner v. Machetto, 7 N.J.Super. 547, 72 A.2d 425 (Cty.Ct.1950) and Whalen v. Young, 28 N.J.Super. 543, 552, 1......