Peterson v. Am. Ice Co.

• Citation: 83 N.J.L. 579,83 A. 872
• Parties: PETERSON v. AMERICAN ICE CO.
• Decision Date: 20 June 1912
• Court: United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)

83 A. 872

83 N.J.L. 579

PETERSON

v. AMERICAN ICE CO.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

June 20, 1912.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error to Circuit Court, Camden County.

Action by Anton Peterson against the American Ice Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Reversed.

Wescott & Wescott, of Camden, for plaintiff in error.

Carrow & Kraft, of Camden, for defendant in error.

MINTURN, J. While working at his employment as a carpenter engaged in constructing a new roof upon defendant's coal-shed in Camden, the plaintiff slipped and fell from the roof, sustaining the injuries which present the basis for this suit, and for which he recovered a verdict at the circuit. He had been engaged at his trade for 10 years, and had worked on the roof in question for two days prior to the accident.

On the morning of the accident it began to snow, and at noon, when the plaintiff was directed by the foreman to finish the work, there was about an inch of snow upon the roof. He worked there until between 3 and 4 o'clock, when he slipped and fell. He testified that he saw no ice there, that it was not freezing, and that the weather was inclined to be mild. The roof was pitched slightly, and there was nothing incident to the work at the time to indicate to the plaintiff a dangerous condition, and he admitted he was used to working under such conditions. A witness for the plaintiff, a fellow worker, testified that there was not enough snow upon the roof to trouble them, and that he saw no ice upon the roof until after the plaintiff fell. The defendant met this situation with proof that there was no ice upon the roof.

The legal question involved as to the master's liability, under these circumstances, was raised upon a motion to nonsuit, and a motion to direct a verdict, both of which motions were refused by the trial court, and the case is here upon exceptions to those rulings. The claim of the plaintiff is predicated upon the contention, as outlined in the brief, that, if the plaintiff did not know of the existence of the ice under the snow upon the roof, and could not by the exercise of reasonable care discern it, and that if the defendant by the exercise of reasonable care could have known of the ice so hidden and failed to possess himself of that knowledge, the defendant is liable for the damage. It is difficult to perceive how liability can be imposed upon the master for a failure to discover a condition which it is conceded was not within the power and trained experience of the plaintiff to observe and discover, and which in the legal postulate advanced to support the action could not be discovered by him in the exercise of reasonable care. The argument, in effect, superimposes upon the master the possession of a power of vision and a faculty of discernment and foresight to observe danger, which it denies to the servant, and therein lies its fallacy as a legal contention. The negligence of the master, if it exist, must be predicated upon the neglect to observe some duty cast upon it by the law, and...