Maphet v. Hudson & M. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 09 March 1923
• Citation: 119 A. 777
• Parties: MAPHET v. HUDSON & M. RY. CO.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

119 A. 777

MAPHET

v. HUDSON & M. RY. CO.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

March 9, 1923.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Hudson County.

Action by John Maphet against the Hudson & Manhattan Railway Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.

Argued November term, 1922, before BERGEN and MINTURN, JJ.

Collins & Corbin, of Newark, for appellant.

James A. Hamill, of Jersey City, for respondent.

BERGEN, J. This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, and the principal question raised is whether the plaintiff's case was sufficient to justify the trial court in refusing to direct a verdict for the defendant. The case was submitted to the jury upon the question whether "plaintiff's injuries were caused by the negligence of the defendant in dropping or placing the said fuse on the said platform. "The plaintiff proved that as he stepped from the car of the defendant to its station platform his foot came in contact with a fuse plug, an instrument about one inch in diameter and a few inches in length, and, being round, rolled under the foot of plaintiff, causing him to fall, resulting in the injuries sued for; that such fuses were sometimes used by the servants of the defendant to push a button, which caused the car door to open; that similar fuses were in general use by the company in their electrical department, and when no longer useful some were thrown on the tracks of the company by its servants, but not on the platform. From this evidence plaintiff insists that the jury had a right to infer that the particular fuse which caused the injury was dropped or placed on the platform by the defendant's servants. There was no proof of the length of time which this fuse had been on the platform, nor that the defendant's servants negligently dropped or placed it there. There was proof in the case, however, that these fuses were on sale at all stores selling electrical supplies. We do not think that the evidence justifies the inference that the defendant's servants negligently dropped or placed it on the platform. Negligence is never presumed, but must always be proven. The only presumption of fact which the law recognizes is an immediate inference from the facts proved, and mere theories and inferences do not authorize a verdict, unless they are the only conclusions which can reasonably be drawn from the facts proven, and if a plaintiff is to succeed it is incumbent on him, in the absence of direct...