Liveright v. Max Lifsitz Furniture Co.
| Decision Date | 20 October 1936 |
| Docket Number | No. 98.,98. |
| Citation | 187 A. 583 |
| Parties | LIVERIGHT v. MAX LIFSITZ FURNITURE CO. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
It is well established in this state that the liability of an inviter is circumscribed by the invitation, and does not extend to invitees whose injuries are received while using the premises not within the limits of the invitation, and the mere passive acquiescence by the owner in a certain use of his property imposes no obligation upon him to keep it in a safe condition for the benefit of the user.
Appeal from Supreme Court.
Action by Howard Liveright against Max Lifsitz Furniture Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Harry T. Davimos, of Newark, for appellant.
Skeffington & Walker, of Newark, for respondent.
This is an appeal from the Supreme Court, Essex Circuit, from a judgment of nonsuit. It appears that on December 10, 1934, the plaintiff, who was a furniture salesman, entered the store of the defendant for the purpose of selling furniture, but made no sale. He also endeavored to purchase a piece of novelty furniture for another customer, but the defendant was unable to supply it. The plaintiff then used the defendant's telephone for the purpose of making a personal call, and after doing so, inquired of an employee of the defendant as to the whereabouts of the toilet, and asked permission to use same. The toilet was in the rear of the store and was separated from the main store by a partition. The plaintiff testified that behind the partition, as you approached the toilet door, it was quite dark, and the visibility poor. He was able, however, to distinguish a lighting fixture in the passageway and another within the toilet, but neither was lit at the time of the accident. The floor of the toilet was approximately three inches higher than the store floor. As the plaintiff entered the toilet, he attempted to pull a cord which would turn on the light within the toilet, and in doing so, he tripped over the floor elevation and fell against the toilet seat. There is no evidence to indicate any improper construction. The apparent cause of the accident was the failure to have the lights turned on, the fixtures being there to light both the passageway and the interior of the toilet.
The only question involved is what duty was owing by the defendant to the plaintiff under the circumstances as presented by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Monheit v. Rottenberg
...whose injuries are received while using the premises not within the limits of the invitation." Liveright v. Max Lifsitz Furniture Co., 117 N.J.L. 243, 244, 187 A. 583 (E. & A.1936); see also Gudnestad v. Seaboard Coal Dock Co., 15 N.J. 210, 219, 104 A.2d 313 (1954); Hendrikson v. Koppers Co......
-
Crown Cork & Seal Co. v. Kane
...51 N.E.2d 774; Dickau v. Rafala, 141 Conn. 121, 104 A.2d 214; Campbell v. Weathers, 153 Kan. 316, 111 P.2d 72; Liveright v. Lifsitz Furniture Co., 117 N.J.L. 243, 187 A. 583; Collins v. Sprague's Benson Pharmacy, 124 Neb. 210, 245 N.W. 602, and Sulhoff v. Everett, 235 Iowa 396, 16 N.W.2d In......
-
Tahan v. Wagaraw Holding Co.
...of reasonable care to such licensee. Phillips v. Library Co., 55 N.J.L. 307, 27 A. 478 (E. & A.1893); Liveright v. Max Lifsitz Furniture Co., 117 N.J.L. 243, 244, 187 A. 583 (E. & A.1936); Lordi v. Spiotta, supra; King v. Patrylow, 15 N.J.Super. 429, 83 A.2d 639 (App.Div.1951); Boyd v. Inte......
-
Girard v. Kabatznick
...of his invitation and has become a mere licensee. Feinberg v. Strose-Adler Co., 3 Conn.Supp. 202, 206; Liveright v. Max Lifsitz Furniture Co., 117 N.J.L. 243, 244, 187 A. 583; Keeran v. Spurgeon Mercantile Co., 194 Iowa 1240, 1242, 191 N.W. 99, 27 A.L.R. 579. The question was fully discusse......