Galbraith v. Smith
| Decision Date | 08 August 1938 |
| Docket Number | No. 413.,413. |
| Parties | GALBRAITH v. SMITH. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, Fourth Judicial District, Union County.
Action by Adria Galbraith against Marie Smith, doing business as the Orchid Beauty Shop, to recover for injuries sustained when a chandelier, which was suspended from the ceiling, broke and fell upon plaintiff while plaintiff was sitting in a booth in defendant's shop receiving treatment. From a judgment of no cause for action, plaintiff appeals.
Reversed and a venire de novo awarded.
Argued May term, 1938, before TRENCHARD, PARKER, and PERSKIE, JJ.
W. S. Angleman, of Plainfield, for appellant.
Joseph J. Mutnick, of Plainfield, for appellee.
This is a tort case. Plaintiff appeals from a judgment entered upon the judge's verdict of no cause for action.
Plaintiff entered defendant's beauty parlor for the purpose of obtaining a permanent wave. She was directed to a booth, and while sitting there during the course of the treatment, she was struck by a chandelier which was suspended from the ceiling, and which broke and fell upon her. Apart from a recital of the mere happening of the accident, there was some testimony for the plaintiff that the chandelier was defectively installed. The proof for defendant, on the other hand, was to the effect that the chandelier was inspected regularly and that reasonable care had been exercised.
The court below ruled that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was inapplicable, but denied defendant's motions for a nonsuit and for a directed verdict, and found, upon the proved facts, that there was no liability.
We think there was reversible error.
This is not the type of a case where all the facts and circumstances concerning the accident were disclosed by the proofs with nothing left to inference on the question of defendant's negligence. Were this such a case the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur would, of course, have no application. Hochreutener v. Pfenninger, 113 N.J.L. 317, 174 A. 513. On the contrary, the facts in the case at bar clearly invoke the doctrine. Feingold v. S. S. Kresge Co., 116 N.J.L. 146, 147, 183 A. 170 (); Gordon v. Weinreb, 181 A. 435, 13 N.J.Misc. 835 (). Cf. Cleary v. Camden, 118 N.J.L. 215, especially cases collated at pages 219, 220 192 A. 29, affirmed 119 N.J.L. 387, 196 A. 455. That being so, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. Racquet Club of Bricktown
... ... Morris, 102 N.J.L. 650, 133 A. 427 (E. & A.1926); Von Staveren v. F.W. Woolworth Co., 29 N.J.Super. 197, 102 A.2d 59 (App.Div.1954); Galbraith v. Smith, 120 N.J.L. 515, 1 A.2d 34 (Sup.Ct.1938); Cleary v. Camden, 118 N.J.L. 215, 219-20, 192 A. 29 (Sup.Ct.1937), aff'd o.b. 119 N.J.L. 387, 196 ... ...
-
Marzotto v. Gay Garment Co.
... ... in that instruction any justifiable reason in this case to repudiate the assertions of Justices Trenchard, Parker, and Perskie made in Galbraith v. Smith, 120 N.J.L. 515, 1 A.2d 34, 35 (Sup.Ct.1938), viz.: 'True, defendant is always entitled to go forward, as she did in the case at bar, with ... ...
-
Scott v. James, 97-CV-2042.
... ... In Smith v. Kennedy, 43 Ala.App. 554, 195 So.2d 820, 825 (1966), a cold wave permanent liquid solution case on which Ms. Scott places heavy reliance, the ... that the permanent wave had caused both these conditions and the loss of hair." Finally, although Ms. Scott cites Galbraith v. Smith, 120 N.J.L. 515, 1 A.2d 34 (1938), a permanent wave case, the injuries there were caused by a falling chandelier ... ... ...
-
Zappala v. Stanley Co. of Am.
... ... 427, 46 A.L.R. 1108; Zboyan v. City of Newark, 104 N.J.L. 258, 140 A. 225; Feingold v. S. S. Kresge Co., 116 N.J.L. 146, 183 A. 170; Galbraith v. Smith, 120 N.J.L. 515, 1 A.2d 34; Gordon v. Weinreb, 181 A. 435, 13 N.J.Misc. 835 ... The precise factual situation presented ... ...