Leeds v. Atl. City

Decision Date27 November 1935
Citation181 A. 892
PartiesLEEDS v. ATLANTIC CITY.
CourtNew Jersey Circuit Court

Action by Earl H. Leeds against the City of Atlantic City, wherein a motion was filed to strike one of the separate defenses.

Motion granted.

Joseph B. Kauffman, of Atlantic City, for plaintiff.

Siracusa & Backer, of Atlantic City, for defendant.

JAYNE, Circuit Court Judge.

An examination of the complaint reveals that the plaintiff prosecutes this action to recover damages from the city of Atlantic City to compensate him for certain bodily injuries which he alleges he sustained on November 21, 1934, while he was attending a football game in the City Convention Hall. Concisely stated, the complaint declares that the defendant arranged to exhibit this football game in its Convention Hall to all persons who would pay the required admission fee, and that the plaintiff paid the admission fee and occupied a seat on a stand erected for the use of those who were to witness the game. Additionally it is alleged that the defendant so negligently erected and maintained the stand upon which the plaintiff was seated that it collapsed.

The answer embraces several separate defenses. The present motion is addressed to the fifth separate defense. The averment is that by virtue of chapter 460 of the Laws of 1933 (N.J.St.Annual 1934, § *136—1829B) the defendant, as a municipal corporation, is exempt from the alleged liability. The statute (P.L. 1933, p. 1550) is as follows:

"1. No county, municipality or school district shall be liable for injury to the person from the use of any public grounds, buildings or structures, any law to the contrary notwithstanding.

"2. This act shall take effect immediately."

It may be incidentally observed that this statute was approved January 10, 1934, and that the mishap to which the complaint relates occurred on November 21, 1934. It is contended in behalf of the plaintiff that, although this statute became effective prior to the occurrence in which the plaintiff was injured, the enactment does not exempt the city from liability to the plaintiff in the circumstances alleged in the complaint. Therefore, the initial inquiry is whether this statute evinces an intention of the Legislature to liberate municipalities from liability for negligence such as is here alleged. In the present action the city is charged with negligence in the construction and maintenance of seats at an entertainment conducted by the city for profit in the Municipal Convention Hall, to which the plaintiff was invited.

In recent years, powers of municipal corporations have been gradually expanded, and under statutory authority municipalities have been permitted to embark upon activities unrelated to strictly governmental functions and appertaining more to the social and recreational needs of the community, or to the promotion of its growth and development. Such activities transcend the scope of strictly governmental requirements. The immunity of municipal corporations from liability for the negligence of its agents and servants in the performance of governmental functions has not been correspondingly enlarged to encircle negligence in the pursuit of the so-called private or proprietary functions. Thus our courts in recent years have been more frequently concerned with the liability of municipal corporations in tort actions. In the solution of these problems our courts have emphasized a significant distinction between negligence in the performance of a private or proprietary function and a dereliction of duty in the exercise of a governmental function. In some cases, active wrongdoing by the municipality has been a decisive circumstance. An exploration of the reported cases in many states will disclose that the courts, in the absence of a controlling statute, have undertaken to distribute such municipal activities into the mutually exclusive categories of governmental or proprietary functions. Many, if not most, of our own decisions may be found cited by me in Buffington v. County of Atlantic, 167 A. 527, 11 N.J.Misc. 443. It must be realized that a substantial body of law has now been developed by the courts, relating to the liability of municipalities in actions in tort. At the time of the enactment of this statute in 1933, it was the well-established law of this state that: "It is only where the business or work of the municipality is confined to the exercise of a strictly governmental function, free from any active wrongdoing on its...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Caporossi v. Atlantic City, New Jersey
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • August 7, 1963
    ...upon municipal liability was considered by the lower courts in New Jersey, shortly after its enactment, in Leeds v. Atlantic City, 13 N.J.Misc. 868, 181 A. 892 (Cir.Ct. 1935), and in Falcone v. Newark Board of Education, 17 N.J.Misc. 75, 4 A.2d 687 In Leeds, the court pointed out that it co......
  • Weeks v. City of Newark
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • June 24, 1960
    ...the statute upon existing decisional law was considered by some of our lower courts soon after its passage. In Leeds v. Atlantic City, 13 N.J.Misc. 868, 181 A. 892 (Cir.Ct.1935), plaintiff was injured while watching a football game in the municipally-owned Convention Hall. Judge Jayne held ......
  • Fahey v. Jersey City
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • June 28, 1968
    ...41 N.J. 198, 195 A.2d 467 (1963); Falcone v. Bd. Education, Newark, 17 N.J.Misc. 75, 4 A.2d 687 (C.P.1939); Leeds v. Atlantic City, 13 N.J.Misc. 868, 181 A. 892 (Cir.Ct.1935). Thus, despite the dissatisfaction with the artificial governmental-proprietary distinction which this and other cou......
  • Cloyes v. Delaware Tp.
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • February 4, 1957
    ...that defendants did not urge this statute here applies and hence we do not consider whether it might. See Leeds v. City of Atlantic City, 13 N.J.Misc. 868, 181 A. 892 (Cir.Ct.1935); Falcone v. Board of Education of Newark, 17 N.J.Misc. 75, 77, 4 A.2d 687 (Com.Pl.1939). We have also chapter ......
  • 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