Lewis v. Dear
| Decision Date | 29 April 1938 |
| Docket Number | No. 44.,44. |
| Citation | 120 N.J.L. 244,198 A. 887 |
| Parties | LEWIS v. DEAR. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Appeal from the Supreme Court.
Action by May G. Lewis against William Y. Dear for personal injuries resulting from slipping on a polished floor in defendant's home. Motion for nonsuit granted, judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Richard Doherty, of Jersey City, for appellant. Kalisch & Kalisch, of Newark (Isidor Kalisch, of Newark, of counsel), for respondent.
The appellant was a guest with others in the home of the respondent, having been invited to spend the evening and to participate in card playing and other entertainment. She was summoned to supper by her hostess from the solarium where she was playing cards. The floors were of hardwood and highly polished. A small rug was on the drawing room floor at the entrance to the solarium. In passing through this doorway to go to supper, the respondent stepped on this rug, it slipped from under her, and caused her to fall violently to the floor, resulting in personal injuries, for which she seeks damages.
The defendant's motion for nonsuit was granted. This appeal is from that ruling.
We think the decision was right. On the facts, which are not disputed, no case of liability is established under the law.
The rule, as stated in 45 Corpus Juris 794, and quoted with approval by Mr. Justice Bodine in the opinion in Gregory v. Loder, 116 N.J.L. 451, 185 A. 360, follows: "It has been held that one who comes on premises by express invitation to enjoy hospitality as a guest of the owner or occupant, or a guest who enters merely to receive a gratuitous favor from the owner or occupant, has only the rights of a licensee and must take the property as he finds it."
This court, speaking through Mr. Justice Minturn in Morril v. Morril, 104 N.J.L. 557, 142 A. 337, 340, 60 A.L.R. 102, quoted with approval from Southcote v. Stanley, 1 H. & N. 247; 25 L.J.Exch. 339, this language: "Where one visits the private home of another as a social guest the owner is bound to take the same care of him that he takes of himself and the other members of his family, and no more."
See, also, Comeau v. Comeau, 285 Mass. 578, 189 N.E. 588, 92 A.L.R. 1002.
The appellant contends that even though she was a licensee the respondent is none the less liable because of creating a trap and for being actively negligent.
The proofs are entirely barren of any facts or inferences which might...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Martin v. Henson
...point, and thereafter counsel calls our attention to Greenfield v. Miller, 173 Wis. 184, 180 N.W. 834, 12 A.L.R. 982 and Lewis v. Dear, 120 N.J.L. 244, 198 A. 887. In dealing with this contention counsel for the defendants base the argument on the major premise that the plaintiff was, under......
-
Wolfson v. Chelist
...N.W. 834, 12 A.L.R. 982; Bartkowski v. Schrembs, Ohio App., 67 N.E.2d 922; Page v. Murphy, 194 Minn. 607, 261 N.W. 443; Lewis v. Dear, 120 N.J.L. 244, 199 A. 887, 888; Cosgrave v. Malstrom, 127 N.J.L. 505, 23 A.2d 288; Roth v. Prudential Life Ins. Co. of N. Y., 266 App.Div. 872, 42 N.Y.S. 5......
-
Berger v. Shapiro
...557, 142 A. 337, 60 A.L.R. 102 (E. & A. 1928), citing Southcote v. Stanley, 1 H. & N. 247, 25 L.J.Exch. 339 (1856); Lewis v. Dear, 120 N.J.L. 244, 198 A. 887 (E. & A. 1938). Thus the host need not undertake to make improvements or alterations to render his home safer for those accepting his......
-
Mistretta v. Alessi, A--171
...557, 561, 142 A. 337, 60 A.L.R. 102 (E. & A.1928); Gregory v. Loder, 116 N.J.L. 451, 185 A. 360 (Sup.Ct.1936); Lewis v. Dear, 120 N.J.L. 244, 198 A. 887 (E. & A.1938); Cosgrove v. Malstrom, 127 N.J.L. 505, 23 A.2d 288 (Sup.Ct.1941); Vogel v. Eckert, 22 N.J.Super. 220, 91 A.2d 633 (App.Div.1......