Krug v. Wanner

Decision Date03 November 1958
Docket NumberNo. A--13,A--13
Citation28 N.J. 174,145 A.2d 612
PartiesMinna KRUG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Emil WANNER, t/a Washington Pork Store, and 237 Washington Street Corporation, a corporation of New Jersey, Defendants-Respondents.
CourtNew Jersey Supreme Court

Frederick Klaessig, Jersey City, argued the cause for appellant.

Seymour A. Smith, Hackensack, argued the cause for defendant Emil Wanner, t/a Washington Pork Store (Hein, Smith & Mooney, Hackensack, attorneys).

Edward E. Kuebler, Newark, argued the cause for defendant 237 Washington St. Corp.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

JACOBS, J.

The Law Division granted motions for dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint against the tenant-defendant Emil Wanner, t/a Washington Pork Store, and entered judgment for the landlord-defendant 237 Washington Street Corporation on the jury's finding that the plaintiff and the landlord-defendant were both negligent and that the plaintiff therefore had no cause for action. The Appellate Division affirmed and we certified on the plaintiff's application under R.R. 1:10--2. 27 N.J. 73, 141 A.2d 318.

The building located at 233 Washington Street, Hoboken is owned by the 237 Washington Street Corporation and includes a street front store, a cellar underneath the store, and two apartments above the store. The street front store and the cellar are occupied by the tenant Emil Wanner, trading as the Washington Pork Store. The public sidewalk in front of the store is paved from building line to curb and on the sidewalk near the corner of the building there are diamond plate steel cellar doors which cover the street entrance to the cellar. The only other entrance to the cellar is inside the store. Mr. Wanner testified that he continued uninterruptedly as a tenant of the store and cellar after his written lease had expired in 1938; that he used the cellar for the storage of meat and equipment; that the gas and electric meters for the apartments above the store had been located in the cellar but were removed recently; that he had the key to the cellar doors which were opened for airing of the cellar every day during the summers but not during the winters; and that although he had never repaired or painted the cellar doors the landlord had repaired them some years earlier. Mr. Hausold, president of the 237 Washington Street Corporation, testified that to the best of his recollection new cellar doors were installed by the corporation in 1951; that the sidewalks surrounding the cellar doors had been repaired by the corporation in 1953; that since 1951 the cellar doors had not been repaired; that the tenant Wanner had 'sole use of the basement'; and that the only agreement between the landlord corporation and the tenant Wanner relating to the cellar doors was that the tenant would paint them. Mr. Cohen testified that when in 1951 his firm worked on the cellar doors for the landlord corporation it installed a new frame and hinges but did not replace the old diamond plate steel doors.

The plaintiff Mrs. Krug testified on direct examination that on March 17, 1956 she was passing the Washington Pork Store when she recalled that she wanted to make a purchase; she 'turned around' and 'stood in front of the cellar door'; she stepped with one foot on the cellar door and 'hooked'; she 'slipped with the other foot and stumbled'; and she fell and severely injured herself. On cross-examination she testified that her foot 'hooked on' or 'got caught' on the 'outside curve' of the cellar door. Although she admitted that the sidewalk had been swept and 'cleaned up' she stated that she had seen some 'ice and sawdust' and had seen snow at the point where her foot caught on the cellar door. Mr. Dagle, the plaintiff's son-in-law, testified that he received a telephone call that his mother-in-law had been hurt; he went to the Washington Pork Store and spoke to her; he observed that there were 'splotches of ice and snow and sawdust on the cellar door'; he also observed that one corner of the cellar door was 'higher than the rest' and when he 'kicked the snow away' he 'caught' his foot on the cellar door. Mr. Mayo, a licensed professional engineer, testifying as an expert for the plaintiff, stated that he had examined the cellar doors and found that the northwest corner projected nine-sixteenths of an inch above the sidewalk, whereas the southwest corner was one-fourth of an inch above the sidewalk; he considered that the additional elevation at the northwest corner made the cellar door 'a hazard'; and he expressed the view that there had been improper construction, improper maintenance 'or a combination of the two'. Mr. Hogan, a civil engineer testifying as an expert for the plaintiff, stated that he 'found the northwesterly corner of the cellar doors one-half inch higher above the iron frame of the door' whereas the 'southwesterly corner was one-quarter of an inch higher than the frame'; he expressed the view that the door did not fit properly, that the condition had existed for several years, and that 'the cause originated in the fact that the hinge where this is fastened to the frame moves up and down and with the infiltration of dirt underneath that hinge would cause that entire door to be raised up.'

The defendants introduced expert and other testimony which disputed the plaintiff's contentions but it need not be detailed here; on the issue of whether there was enough evidence against the defendants for submission to the jury, the plaintiff was admittedly entitled to the benefit of all of the favorable testimony introduced on her behalf including all of the favorable inferences to be drawn therefrom. See Dobrow v. Hertz, 125 N.J.L. 347, 348, 15 A.2d 749 (E. & A.1940); O'Donnell v. Asplundh Tree Expert Co., 13 N.J. 319, 328, 99 A.2d 577 (1953). Her complaint, which sounded in negligence and in nuisance arising out of negligence (Hartman v. Brigantine, 23 N.J. 530, 535, 129 A.2d 876 (1957)), alleged that the corporate defendant had 'carelessly constructed and maintained' the cellar door, that the individual defendant had 'participated' in the nuisance by failing to correct the condition and make the entrance to his place of business reasonably safe, and that she was injured 'when she tripped on that part of the cellar door which was carelessly allowed to rise over the surface of the sidewalk'. The complaint also alleged that the defendants had 'negligently removed snow' from the sidewalk so as to leave a dangerous layer of ice, had 'negligently distributed sawdust from its store', and had 'negligently failed to maintain said sidewalk in a safe and suitable manner.' While adequate evidence of culpability in the snow removal and sawdust distribution and its causal relation to the accident may perhaps have been lacking (cf. Taggart v. Bouldin, 111 N.J.L. 464, 168 A. 570 (E. & A.1933); MacGregor v. Tinker Realty Co., 37 N.J.Super. 112, 117 A.2d 45 (App. Div.1955)), there was at least sufficient evidence to establish that the plaintiff suffered injury on March 17, 1956 when she caught her foot on an upraised corner of the cellar door and that both the landlord and tenant had negligently permitted the cellar door to remain in that defective condition and become a tripping hazard. See McKeown v. King, 99 N.J.L. 251, 122 A. 753 (E. & A.1923); O'Malley v. Gerth, 67 N.J.L. 610, 52 A. 563 (E. & A.1902).

For the protection of its patrons, every commercial establishment must maintain its premises, including means of ingress and egress, in reasonably safe condition. See Bohn v. Hudson & Manhattan R. Co., 16 N.J. 180, 108 A.2d 5 (1954); Brody v. Albert Lifson & Sons, 17 N.J. 383, 111 A.2d 504 (1955). Cf. Nelson v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 48 N.J.Super. 300, 137 A.2d 599 (App.Div.1958); Ratering v. Mele, 11 N.J.Super. 211, 78 A.2d 105 (App.Div.1951). And although the paved sidewalks fronting a commercial establishment are primarily for the use of the public generally, their condition is so beneficially related to the operation of the business that the unrestricted legal duty of maintaining them in good repair might, arguably, be placed on it. See Moskowitz v. Herman, 16 N.J. 223, 228--231, 108 A.2d 426 (1954). But thus far no such duty has been imposed and our State adheres to the common-law rule that abutting owners and occupiers are not ordinarily responsible for injuries resulting from sidewalk defects caused by the action of the elements or the wear and tear incident to public use. See Rupp v. Burgess, 70 N.J.L. 7, 56 A. 166 (Sup.Ct.1903); Coll v. Bernstein, 14 N.J.Super. 71, 81 A.2d 389 (App.Div.1951); Stevenson, 'Law of Streets and Sidewalks in New Jersey,' 3 Rutgers L.Rev. 19 (1949). While this general rule of nonresponsibility has left without recourse many innocent parties who suffered serious injuries because of sidewalk defects, our courts have justly not permitted it to defeat recovery where the injured party established that the condition of the sidewalk was actually the result of the abutting owner or occupier's own wrongful conduct or constituted, in broad legal contemplation, a nuisance which the abutting owner or occupier had either originally created or had thereafter participated in maintaining. See Braelow v. Klein, 100 N.J.L. 156, 125 A. 103 (E. & A.1924); Fasano v. Prudential Insurance Co., 117 N.J.L. 539, 190 A. 319 (Sup.Ct.1937); McHugh v. Hawthorne B. & L. Ass'n, 118 N.J.L. 78, 191 A. 548 (Sup.Ct.1937); Wirth v. Peters, 36 N.J.Super. 172, 114 A.2d 870 (App.Div.1955); Longi v. Raymond-Commerce Corp., 34 N.J.Super. 593, 113 A.2d 69 (App.Div.1955). Among the pertinent instances where recoveries were allowed were those where abutting owners and occupiers placed facilities such as drains, grates and cellar doors on the sidewalks for their own private uses and failed to exercise proper care to prevent them from becoming dangerous to the traveling public. See McKeown v. King, supra; ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
31 cases
  • Yanhko v. Fane
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • July 7, 1976
    ...37 N.J.Super. 112, 117 A.2d 45 (App.Div.1955), I do note that judicial expression on this question is not uniform. In Krug v. Wanner, 28 N.J. 174, 145 A.2d 612 (1958), for example, Justice Jacobs speaking for a unanimous Court For the protection of its patrons, every commercial establishmen......
  • Bates v. Valley Fair Enterprises, Inc.
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • December 18, 1964
    ...& D., Inc., 38 N.J. 341, 353, 184 A.2d 857 (1962); Skupienski v. Maly, 27 N.J. 240, 248--249, 142 A.2d 220 (1958); Krug v. Wanner, 28 N.J. 174, 179--184, 145, A.2d 612 (1958); Merkel v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 77 N.J.Super. 535, 187 A.2d 52 (Law Div.1962). The defendant urges, contra, that it......
  • Stewart v. 104 Wallace Street, Inc.
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • July 22, 1981
    ...it has "left without recourse many innocent parties who suffered serious injuries because of sidewalk defects." 3 Krug v. Wanner, 28 N.J. 174, 180, 145 A.2d 612 (1958). Second, the present law gives abutting property owners no incentive to repair deteriorated sidewalks and thereby prevent i......
  • Hollus v. Amtrak Northeast Corridor
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • September 20, 1996
    ...condition of "`paved sidewalks fronting a commercial establishment.'" Stewart, 87 N.J. at 159, 432 A.2d 881 (quoting Krug v. Wanner, 28 N.J. 174, 180, 145 A.2d 612 (1958)). Railroad Undergrade Bridge 31.63 is not a "commercial establishment" within the understanding of Stewart and its proge......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT