Kargman v. Carlo

• Decision Date: 16 March 1914
• Citation: 85 N.J.L. 632,90 A. 292
• Parties: KARGMAN et al. v. CARLO.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

90 A. 292

85 N.J.L. 632

KARGMAN et al.

v. CARLO.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

March 16, 1914.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Appeal from Supreme Court.

Action by Sarah Kargman and her husband against Antonio Carlo for personal injuries. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

J. H. Dougherty, of Bayonne, and A. A. Melniker, of Jersey City, for appellant. David Lisnow, of Bayonne, for respondents.

TRENCHARD, J. This action was brought by Sarah Kargman and Meyer Kargman, her husband, to recover from the defendant, Antonio Carlo, damages for an injury suffered by the plaintiff Sarah Kargman, at 6:45 o'clock in the evening of the 21st day of December, 1912, by falling, by reason of the absence of lights, while she was descending a stairway which she used in visiting a tenant on the third floor of the tenement house owned and controlled by the defendant. The jury at the Hudson circuit rendered a verdict for the plaintiffs, and the defendant appeals from the consequent judgment.

The first ground of appeal is that "the complaint discloses no cause of action." We have not stopped to consider whether, under the method employed, this question was properly raised at the trial, for the reason that the objection is clearly without merit. The complaint was loosely drawn; but, as it stood after the amendment, it averred, in effect, that the defendant was the owner of a tenement house; that he reserved to himself the control and lighting of the hallways thereof; that he was bound to provide necessary and sufficient lights in such hallways, and to keep a proper light burning in the public hallways near the stairs upon the entrance floor and upon the second floor every night, from sunset each day until 10 o'clock each evening; that he negligently maintained such hallways in a darkened and unlighted condition, and wholly omitted to provide any such lights; and that the plaintiff Sarah Kargman, while lawfully using such hallways, and while passing down said stairs at the first floor, by reason of the absence of such lights, and without any negligence on her part, fell and was injured. That, we think, states a cause of action.

It will be observed that negligence is charged in two aspects: (1) The failure to perform the duty imposed by the general principles of the common law; and (2) the failure to perform the duty imposed by the statute known as the Tenement House Act. That the complaint charges actionable negligence under the principles of the common law does not seem to be seriously disputed, and that no doubt, is a sufficient answer to the objection that it does not state a cause of action.

But we may as well here deal with the argument, which runs through several of the grounds of appeal, to the effect that the statute imposed no duty upon the defendant to maintain a light upon the second floor; i. e., the floor next above the entrance floor. Now section 126 of the Tenement House Act (P. L. 1904, p. 126; 4 Comp. St. 1910, p. 5341) provides: "In every tenement house now existing or hereafter erected a proper light shall be kept burning by the owner, in the public hallways, near the stairs, upon the entrance floor; and in every tenement house, over two stories high, such a light shall also be kept burning upon the second floor above the entrance floor of such house every night, throughout the entire year, and upon all other floors of such tenement house from sunset each day until ten o'clock each evening; where the public halls and stairs are not provided with windows opening directly to the street or yard, and such halls and stairs are in the opinion of the board not sufficiently lighted, the owner of such house shall keep a proper light burning in the hallway near the stairs upon each floor as may be necessary, from sunrise to sunset, and all such lights shall be so arranged as to effectually guard against fire." Having due regard to the whole of this section, we think it should be construed as interposing a comma after the words "second floor," so that the second floor, above the entrance floor, will mean the floor above the entrance floor usually known as the second floor. This will make a logical and sensible interpretation of the act. So, then, we hold that the obligation of the owner of a tenement house over two stories high is to keep burning a proper light in the public hallways, near the stairs, upon every floor, between sunset and 10 o'clock each evening. Indeed that was the view we took of the statute in Pesin v. Jugovich, 88 Atl. 1101, although that decision was not with special reference to the obligation to maintain a light upon the second floor.

The defendant next contends that the trial judge erroneously excluded evidence offered by him, and erroneously admitted evidence offered by the plaintiffs. But, so far as the record discloses, the defendant acquiesced in these rulings, because no objection or other protest was made against any of them at the time; and the rule is that no ruling relating to the reception or rejection of evidence will be reviewed, unless the record discloses that an objection to such ruling was duly made or such ruling otherwise challenged at the time of the ruling. The reason for this rule may be gathered from the remarks of Mr. Justice Garrison in Benz v. Central R. R. of New Jersey (Sup.) 82 Atl. 431. It is not based on technical or captious grounds, but, on the contrary, is essential to the administration of justice with due regard to private interests and the policy against needless litigation. Common sense and common fairness alike require that, if counsel thinks the...