Monohan v. Baime
| Decision Date | 10 October 1940 |
| Docket Number | No. 1.,1. |
| Citation | 15 A.2d 599,125 N.J.L. 280 |
| Parties | MONOHAN v. BAIME et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
Where reservation, of part of a leased building, by the landlord, is a matter to be found from disputed facts and circumstances, submission of that question to the jury is proper.
Appeal from Supreme Court, Essex County Circuit.
Action by Dorothy Monohan against Joseph Baime, Samuel Baime, Israel Baime, and Max Baime, individually and trading as partners, for injuries sustained by the plaintiff when a radiator attached to the wall of a building owned by the defendants became detached and struck the plaintiff. From a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, the defendants appeal.
Judgment affirmed.
Bartholomew & Dwyer, of Newark (William O. H. McEnroe and Walter X. Trumbull, both of Newark, of counsel), for plaintiff-respondent.
Colie & Schenck, of Newark (Frederic R. Colie and Robert W. Kirkman, both of Newark, of counsel), for defendants-appellants.
CAMPBELL, Chancellor.
The defendants-appellants, partners, the owners of premises leased to the F. W. Woolworth Company situate at 494-6 Clinton Avenue, Newark, N. J, appeal from a judgment in favor of the respondent, who at the time of the accident was employed as a sales girl by the Woolworth Company. She was severely injured when a radiator attached to the wall back of where she stood became detached and struck her. Prior to the occurrence the appellants had leased the premises to the Woolworth Company under a writing which provided: (Italics ours.)
This cause was argued at the October 1939 term of this Court and the judgment tinder review was affirmed. 16 A.2d 337. The cause was re-argued at this term pursuant to leave granted. At the original presentation there were four grounds of appeal but upon the reargument two were abandoned and two, only, argued. They are:
1. Error in denying motion for non-suit.
2. Error in denying motion for a direction of verdict.
The complaint charges the appellants with four specific acts of negligence: (1) improperly constructing and erecting the radiator; (2) permitting the radiator and its supports to be in an unsafe condition, with knowledge and notice thereof; (3) failure to maintain and repair the supports of the radiator; (4) failure to inspect the radiator and its supports.
The answer denied these allegations but admitted ownership and retained possession and control of the exterior and roof of the building for the purpose of making repairs only, but denied that they reserved and retained control of the heating plant.
The respondent put in evidence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
J.H. v. R&M Tagliareni, LLC, A-6 September Term 2018
...to members of the tenants' family ... arising out of the maintenance and operation of the system." Ibid. (citing Monohan v. Baime, 125 N.J.L. 280, 15 A.2d 599 (E. & A. 1940) ; Ellis, 96 N.J. Super. at 547, 233 A.2d 654 ; Prosser on Torts § 63 at 421 (3d ed. 1964); 2 Harper & James, The Law ......
-
Spinelli v. Golda
...v. Karr, 34 A.2d 651, 22 N.J.Misc. 1 (Cir.Ct.1943); Trondle v. Ward, 129 N.J.L. 179, 28 A.2d 509 (E. & A.1942), Monohan v. Baime, 125 N.J.L. 280, 15 A.2d 599 (E. & A.1940); Millman v. U.S. Mtge. & Title Gty. Co., 121 N.J.L. 28, 1 A.2d 265 (Sup.Ct.1938); McCarthy v. Bye, 118 N.J.L. 94, 191 A......
-
Gentle v. Pine Valley Apartments
...persons lawfully on the premises, 'ordinarily the landlord is liable for the [resulting] injury.' Ibid. See also Monohan v. Baime, 125 N.J.L. 280, 282, 15 A.2d 599 (E. & A.1940); Ellis v. Caprice, 96 N.J.Super. 539, 547, 233 A.2d 654 (App.Div.1967), certif. den. 50 N.J. 409, 235 A.2d 901 (1......
-
Michaels v. Brookchester, Inc.
...largely in the opinions of the judges in Colligan. Their divergent views were revealed in their treatment of Monohan v. Baime, 125 N.J.L. 280, 15 A.2d 599 (E. & A.1940), wherein an employee of a tenant recovered for personal injuries caused by the fall of a radiator located within the demis......