Restaino v. Griggs Motor Sales, Inc.
| Decision Date | 23 July 1937 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 427-429.,s. 427-429. |
| Citation | 193 A. 543,118 N.J.Law 442 |
| Parties | RESTAINO et al. v. GRIGGS MOTOR SALES, Inc. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, Essex County, First District.
Suits by Helen Restaino and others against the Griggs Motor Sales, Incorporated. From a judgment in favor of the defendant, the plaintiffs appeal.
Reversed, and cases remanded for new trial.
Argued May term, 1937, before LLOYD, CASE, and DONGES, JJ.
Pellegrino J. Pellecchia, Jr., and Frank Cozzoline, both of Newark, for appellants. Hugh F. Doherty, of Jersey City, for respondent.
Plaintiffs brought suits in the district court to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by them from the breaking of a large plate glass window, which formed part of the front of the building occupied by the defendant. It appeared that as plaintiffs were walking on the sidewalk in front of the building, the glass fell out upon and injured them. The cases were tried together, and the court found for the defendant, holding that it did not appear that defendant, under the lease of the premises, had control of the windows; that the plate glass window was part of the structure excepted by the terms of the lease from the duty of repair by the defendant; and that, therefore, no duty being imposed upon defendant with respect to the window, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur did not apply and that no negligence of defendant was shown. From the judgment entered this appeal is taken.
The uncontroverted facts are that defendant was the lessee in possession of the whole of the premises in question; that on the day in question a plate glass show window in front of the premises broke and injured plaintiffs as they were lawfully walking upon the sidewalk; that there was a wind, varying from 25 to 45 miles per hour; that they were heavy winds, but not extraordinary winds, and were not of hurricane velocity which would require wind with a velocity of 70 miles per hour or over; that no other windows in the neighborhood were broken. It was testified that the landlord knew of no injury or repairs to this or other windows in the building. The defendant relies upon the following clause in the lease:
Whether this provision imposed the duty of maintenance and repair of the window in question...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Krug v. Wanner
...duty to maintain a sidewalk in front of the demised premises in a reasonably safe condition.' Cf. Restaino v. Griggs Motor Sales, Inc., 118 N.J.L. 442, 193 A. 543 (Sup.Ct.1937); Knox v. Goodman, 45 N.J.Super. 428, 133 A.2d 50 (App.Div.1957), certification denied 25 N.J. 47, 134 A.2d 541 In ......
-
Spinelli v. Golda
...repairs' and contends he thereby retained control over the premises and assumed responsibility, citing Restaino v. Griggs Motor Sales, Inc., 118 N.J.L. 442, 193 A. 543 (Sup.Ct.1937). There the lease provided: 'The tenant does hereby covenant to make all necessary repairs to the interior of ......
-
Knox v. Goodman, A--170
...and cf. Guensch v. Trustees of Third Presbyterian, etc., Newark, 109 N.J.L. 78, 160 A. 507 (E. & A.1932); Restaino v. Griggs Motor Sales, Inc., 118 N.J.L. 442, 193 A. 543 (Sup.Ct.1937). Additionally, defendant contends that the defective stairway was not the proximate cause of plaintiff's i......
-
Slovin v. Gauger
...to be applied, see Hester v. Hubbuch, 26 Tenn.App. 246, 170 S.W.2d 922, 927 (Tenn.Ct. of App. 1942); Restaino v. Griggs Motor Sales, Inc., 118 N.J.L. 442, 193 A. 543 (N.J.Sup.Ct.1937); Kelly v. Laclede Real Estate & Inv. Co. et al., 348 Mo. 407, 155 S.W.2d 90, 138 A.L.R. 1065 (Sup.Ct.Mo.194......