Mayes v. Splitdorf Elec. Co.

• Decision Date: 14 June 1920
• Docket Number: No. 46.,46.
• Parties: MAYES v. SPLITDORF ELECTRICAL CO.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

111 A. 10

MAYES

v. SPLITDORF ELECTRICAL CO.

No. 46.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

June 14, 1920.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Appeal from Supreme Court.

Action by Frank J. Mayes against the Splitdorf Electric Company to recover for personal injuries. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Clarence B. Tippett, of New York City, for appellant.

William M. Rysdyk and Frank G. Turner, both of Jersey City, and George W. Bristol, of New York City, for respondent.

TRENCHARD, J. The judgment under review is founded upon a verdict obtained by the respondent at the Passaic circuit by reason of injuries sustained by falling into a pit in the floor of the boiler house of the appellant's factory. We are of the opinion that the judgment should not be disturbed.

The motions for nonsuit and for the direction of a verdict for the defendant company were rightly denied. Both motions were rested upon the contention that there was no evidence of negligence upon the part of the defendant, and that in turn was based solely upon the insistence that there was no evidence that the defendant was in possession and control of the premises at the time of the accident.

But that is not so. It appeared that the defendant contracted with the American Steel Concrete Company (a general contractor) for the erection of a new boiler house on its factory premises, and that company subcontracted the painting work to Howlett & Co., for whom the plaintiff worked. The evidence tended to show that the plaintiff reported for work to the defendant company, was shown where to work by their representative, and while preparing to go to work on the second day fell into an unguarded pit in the floor of the boiler house.

Of course the general rule is that an owner or occupier of premises, who by invitation, express or implied, induces a person to come upon the premises, is under a duty to exercise ordinary care to render the premises reasonably safe for the purposes embraced in the invitation. Phillips v. Library Co., 55 N. J. Law, 309, 27 Atl. 478; Nolan v. Bridgeton & Millville Traction Co., 74 N. J. Law, 559, 65 Atl. 992; Seller v. Venderbeek & Sons, 88 N. J. Law, 636, 96 Atl. 1009.

The defendant company, however, insists that it owed no duty to the plaintiff, because, at the time of the accident, the boiler house had not been fully completed, and, as the defendant contends, had not been turned over to the possession and control of the defendant by the general contractor.

But the evidence tends to show that such contention is not well founded in fact it tends to show that two days before the accident, when the plaintiff reported to the defendant's office for work, he was taken by a representative of the defendant to the boiler house, and shown where to hang his clothes, and directed where to...