Griffen v. Geeter.
| Decision Date | 04 January 1945 |
| Docket Number | No. 8.,8. |
| Citation | 132 N.J.L. 381,40 A.2d 579 |
| Parties | GRIFFEN v. DE GEETER. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Supreme Court.
Action by Lillian Griffen against Julius De Geeter, individually and doing business under the name of Paramus Skating Rink, for personal injuries. Judgement for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Charles J. Tyne, of Jersey City, for plaintiff-respondent.
Wilbur A. Stevens, of Newark, for defendant-appellant.
The defendant appeals from a judgment obtained by the plaintiff for personal injuries suffered by her in falling to the floor in a roller skating rink, occasioned, she alleges, by the negligence of the defendant in not using ordinary care in the conduct of the rink. Motions for non-suit and direction of verdict for the defendant were denied, and these rulings are the grounds urged for reversal. Contributory negligence was argued below but is abandoned here.
The defendant operates a roller skating rink to which the public is admitted upon the payment of an admission fee. The rink is oval in shape; around it is a railing with several openings which lead to a passageway encircling the rink and through which the patrons enter and leave the skating floor. On the evening of January 8, 1941, plaintiff was a patron or guest of the defendant and, together with between four-hundred to five-hundred others, was skating at the rink. There were four guards employed by the defendant whose duty it was to skate among the patrons and protect them from unruly skaters, and to clear the floor periodically, upon the ringing of a bell as a signal therefor. In clearing the floor, the guards skated with outstretched arms and thus herded the guest skaters to and through the various passageways to the outer space beyond the skating floor. On the night in question, while the floor was being cleared in this manner (which was accomplished in less than one minute), the plaintiff skated to the exit nearest her when the bell rang. It was too crowded for her entry, so she skated to the one next to it. That too was crowded; and as she slowly came to the edge of the crowd, a guard, she says, skated rapidly toward her with outstretched arms, causing her to turn directly into the crowd, throwing her off balance. She stumbled, hit someone's skates, fell and suffered a fractured wrist.
The law is well settled that one who invites persons to come upon his premises is under a duty to exercise ordinary care to render the premises reasonably safe for such purpose. Phillips v. Library Co., 55 N.J.L. 307, 27 A. 478. This rule has been followed in cases where invitees have been injured in moving picture theatres and other places of amusement. Compare Demarest v. Palisades Realty & Amusement Co., 101 N.J.L. 66, 127 A. 536, 38 A.L.R. 352; Lancaster v. Highlands Finance Corporation, 117 N.J.L. 476, 189 A. 371; Lipton v. Dreamland Park Company, 121 N.J.L. 554, 3...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lokar v. Church of the Sacred Heart, Mount Ephraim
...27 A. 478 (E. & A. 1893). See Murphy v. Core Joint Concrete Pipe Co., 110 N.J.L. 83, 164 A. 262 (E. & A. 1933); Griffin v. De Geeter, 132 N.J.L. 381, 40 A.2d 579 (E. & A. 1945); Beck v. Monmouth Lumber Co., 137 N.J.L. 268, 59 A.2d 400 (E. & A. 1948); Gudnestad v. Seaboard Coal Dock Co., 15 ......
-
Cahill v. Mundet Cork Corp.
...133 A.2d 12 (1957); Terranella v. Union Building and Construction Co., supra, 3 N.J. at p. 448, 70 A.2d 753; Griffin v. De Geeter, 132 N.J.L. 381, 382, 40 A.2d 579 (E. & A. 1945). The settled rule in the Phillips case is clear and beyond question. Our immediate concern is with its applicati......
-
McLaughlin v. Rova Farms, Inc.
...diving. It did not serve to put him on guard as to any extraordinary hazards created by defendant Farms. See Griffin v. DeGeeter, 132 N.J.L. 381, 383, 40 A.2d 579 (E. & A.1945); Pona v. Boulevard Arena, 35 N.J.Super. 148, 153, 113 A.2d 529 (App.Div.), certif. den. 19 N.J. 326, 116 A.2d 826 ......
-
Klinsky v. Hanson Van Winkle Munning Co.
...further, stating that each patron assumes the risk of an ordinary danger normally attendant on such a place. Griffin v. De Geeter, 132 N.J.L. 381, 382, 40 A.2d 579 (E. & A.1945); Young v. Ross, supra; Falk v. Stanley Fabian Corp. of Delaware, 115 N.J.L. 141, 145, 178 A. 740 (E. & A.1935); T......