Heuser v. Reilly

• Decision Date: 10 July 1942
• Docket Number: No. 16.,16.
• Citation: 27 A.2d 4,128 N.J.L. 533
• Parties: HEUSER v. REILLY, Commissioner of Banking and Insurance, et al.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

27 A.2d 4

128 N.J.L. 533

HEUSER

v. REILLY, Commissioner of Banking and Insurance, et al.

No. 16.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

July 10, 1942.

Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Hudson County.

Action by Harry Heuser against Louis K. Reilly, Commissioner of Banking and Insurance, in charge of the liquidation of the Mechanic's Trust Company, Abram S. Turteltaub and Leo Turteltaub, trading as S. Turteltaub Sons, and another, for personal injuries. From a judgment for plaintiff against defendants Turteltaub, they appeal.

Reversed.

May term, 1942, before BROGAN, C. J., and PARKER and PORTER, JJ.

Alfred Brenner, of Bayonne, for plaintiff-respondent.

Wall, Haight, Carey & Hartpence, of Jersey City (Edward J. O'Mara, of Jersey City, of counsel), for defendants-appellants.

PORTER, Justice.

This appeal is from a judgment for the plaintiff for personal injuries against the defendants-appellants, Abram S. Turteltaub and Leo Turteltaub, trading as S. Turteltaub Sons. There was a nonsuit as to the other defendants. The denial by the trial court of motions by appellants for nonsuit and directed verdict are the sole grounds argued on this appeal.

The action is by a tenant against the agents in charge of the demised premises based upon the allegation that the agent was negligent in making repairs, having assumed that duty, by reason of which negligence the injuries were sustained. The demised premises consisted of an apartment of five rooms on the second floor of a two-story building in Bayonne. The plaintiff fell out of one of the windows of his apartment to the sidewalk and suffered a broken leg and other lesser injuries. The facts relating to the circumstances of the fall and of any condition of disrepair of the premises or of the promise of appellants to repair are sharply disputed. The appellants deny that any repairs were promised or made to any of the front windows, one of which is in question, or that after plaintiff's fall there was anything in or about the window broken or in need of repair or in fact that it was later repaired. However, that may be, the plaintiff's testimony, which for present purposes must be assumed to be true, is that all of the six front windows were loose and falling apart and that at his request appellants had them repaired. That a carpenter made the repairs by nailing the windows and frames the month before the accident. It appears that the plaintiff purchased full length outside window screens and requested appellants to have them installed but was told that the carpenter was too busy and was requested to install them himself and that an allowance on the rent of $5 would be made. It was while putting up these screens that the plaintiff fell. He says that he had installed five and was at work on the last one at the time. He was on a step ladder in the room alongside of the window, both sashes were down, he had put on the lower hinge and was nailing on the upper one to the right side of the window about 1/3 from the top with his...