Guse v. Martin
Decision Date | 21 June 1921 |
Docket Number | No. 55.,55. |
Citation | 114 A. 316 |
Parties | GUSE v. MARTIN. |
Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Action by Amiel Guse against Joseph G. Martin. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Edward F. Merrey, of Paterson, for appellant.
Edwards & Smith, of Jersey City, for respondent.
This is an appeal from a judgment of nonsuit entered in the Passaic county circuit court. The plaintiff below, the appellant in this court, was the only witness who testified, except a physician, whose testimony was confined to the nature of the injuries received.
From plaintiff's testimony it appears that he was a weaver by trade, and noticed a sign, "Weaver Wanted," in front of a building at 140 Broadway, Paterson, N. J.; a man came from the building and said: "If you are a weaver, you come with me; I will give you a job." They entered a large room and walked along the floor until they came to a stairway, and walked up three flights of stairs to the Norwich Silk Company. Plaintiff worked until 5 p. m. and quit, saying: "I don't like this job, and I no come any more," and asked when he could get the money he had earned; he was told to come on the second Saturday, about 10 days later. He then walked down stairs with the employes of the company, and came to the large room he first entered, and walked across the floor and out of the same door he had entered from the street. He returned on Saturday, March 20th, a little before noon, and entered the same large room and walked back toward the stairway; it was dark, but he could see the way to walk, and proceeded between piles of paper and boxes. He saw a door partly open, in a "big wooden box," and thought this was the entrance to the stairway leading to the floors above.
This was, in fact, the entrance to an elevator, the stairway being a few feet beyond. The door was open two feet, and he "walked right in," and fell, and was injured. There was no gate there. When he reached the doorway he could see nothing inside, because it was dark; he could see "absolute nothing." He had never been through that door; he did not see any one on the floor to direct him, as there was no one there; he was feeling with his feet for a step; he did not wait until he was sure, as "it was a little late," and he thought he could ask somebody; he looked, but could see nothing. Being asked on cross-examination why he did not wait to see where he was walking, and why did he step in without looking, he replied:
The plaintiff later saw the defendant, who admitted that he owned the building, and the elevator was run by his people.
The defendant moved for a nonsuit upon the following grounds: (1) That there is no evidence that plaintiff was an invitee of the owner. (2) If there was an invitation, plaintiff had departed from the place he was invited into. (3) That plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence in entering this place.
After argument of the motion, the court ruled as follows:
Error is assigned upon this action.
The plaintiff first contends that defendant is liable because he violated section 26 of the act entitled "An act regulating the age, employment, safety, health and work hours of persons, employes and operatives in factories, workshops, mills and all places where the manufacture of goods of any kind is carried on, and to establish a department for the enforcement thereof" (Comp. St. p. 3020 [P. L. 1904, p. 152, § 11]), and that the accident happened because of the violation of this provision. This section is headed "Protection of Employes," and reads as follows :
"The openings of all hoistways, hatchways, elevators and wellholes upon every floor of any place comiug under the provisions of this act, shall be protected by good and sufficient trapdoors or self-closing hatches and safety catches, or strong guard rails at least three feet high, and shall be kept closed and protected at all times except when in actual use by the occupant of the building having the use and control of the same."
But this statute has no application to the present case. Its only purpose is, as the statute itself said, the protection of employes, and employes are the only parties who can take advantage of it. Both the title and body of the statute make it plain that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hartung v. Union Pac. R. Co.
... ... APPEAL ... from District Court, Laramie County; WILLIAM A. RINER, Judge ... Action ... by Martin H. Hartung, administrator of the estate of Charles ... F. Smith, deceased, against the Union Pacific Railroad ... Company. Judgment for defendant, ... 694; Faris v. Hoberg, (Ind.) 33 N.E. 1028; ... Muncie Co. v. Davis, (Ind.) 70 N.E. 875; Indiana ... Co. v. Neal, (Ind.) 77 N.E. 850; Guse v. Martin, (N ... J.) 114 A. 316; Clark v. Ry. Co., (Kan.) 11 P ... 134; Hamilton v. Co., (Minn.) 80 N.W. 693; Harty ... v. Central R. R ... ...
-
Fortugno Realty Co. v. Schiavone-Bonomo Corp., SCHIAVONE-BONOMO
...efficient cause of the damage to plaintiff's scales because the standard which the statute imposed had been breached Guse v. Martin, 96 N.J.L. 262, 114 A. 316 (E. & A. 1921); Evers v. Davis, 86 N.J.L. 196, 90 A. 677 (E. & A.1914); Lambe v. Reardon, 69 N.J.Super. 57, 68, 173 A.2d 520 (App.Di......
-
Fortugno Realty Co. v. Schiavone-Bonomo Corp., SCHIAVONE-BONOMO
...18 N.J.Super. 467, 87 A.2d 441 (App.Div.1952), certification denied 10 N.J. 22, 89 A.2d 306 (1952).' See also, Guse v. Martin, 96 N.J.L. 262, 265, 114 A. 316 (E. & A. 1921). In State v. Gratale Brothers, Inc., 26 N.J.Super. 581, 584, 98 A.2d 591, 593 (App.Div.1953), we had occasion to consi......
-
Nary v. Parking Authority of Town of Dover
... ... Wright v. General Ceramics Co., 120 N.J.L. 33, 197 A. 899 (Sup.Ct.1938); Guse v. Martin, 96 N.J.L ... 262, 114 A. 316 (E. & A.1921). That invitation, however, includes those [156 A.2d 46] parts of the premises to which the ... ...