Polgar v. Kantor

• Decision Date: 29 October 1925
• Docket Number: No. 15.,15.
• Citation: 130 A. 732
• Parties: POLGAR et al. v. KANTOR et al.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

130 A. 732

POLGAR et al.

v. KANTOR et al.

No. 15.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Oct. 29, 1925.

Action by Margaret Polgar and another against Victor J. Kantor and another. Judgment for plaintiffs. On defendants' rule to show cause. Rule discharged if reduction made in amount of damages awarded.

Argued May term, 1925, before PARKER, MINTURN, and BLACK, JJ.

Frank G. Turner, of Jersey City, for the rule.

Ward & McGinnis, of Paterson, opposed.

PER CURIAM. The suit was tried in the Passaic circuit, before the court and a jury, and a verdict rendered for Margaret Polgar for $6,750, and for Michael Polgar for $1,000.

The defendant obtained this rule to show cause. The action was by husband and wife, as tenants, to recover damages for injuries to plaintiff's wife, by reason of alleged negligence in the defendant landlord in omitting to repair the roof of the house in which plaintiffs were tenants.

There was evidence that the roof was in such a defective condition as to allow rain to enter into plaintiffs' apartment, as well as the hall; that defendants were notified by the tenants and janitor several months before the accident; that defendant promised plaintiff that, if they would not move from the premises, the roof would be repaired; that upon entering the hall the plaintiff slipped on a wet floor and fell down a flight of stairs. The mere fact that the plaintiff knew the roof was defective, and that water leaked through during stormy weather, would not ipso facto justify the court, as a matter of law, in finding that the plaintiff assumed the risk or was chargeable with contributory negligence in using the premises under the conditions.

The next point is that the verdicts are excessive. There was evidence that the plaintiff was healthy before the accident, that the injuries affected her breast, bladder, and hip, and produced a fractured rib, from all of which she developed traumatic neurasthenia.

It is insisted as error that the jurors were asked if any of them were stock or bond holders of an insurance company. Upon that ground the defendant asked for a mistrial, which was denied. The motion was made on the ground that the question tended to bias the jury. It is contended in the brief that the question was objectionable, in that it was an omnibus one (Boyd v. Husted [N. J. Sup.] 127 A. 667), but this objection was not raised on the trial, and is therefore not available here. It is charged as error that Dr. Hoffman was permitted to answer...