Reynolds v. Clark
| Decision Date | 01 December 1914 |
| Citation | 92 A. 873,28 Del. 250 |
| Court | Delaware Superior Court |
| Parties | JOSEPH S. REYNOLDS v. JOHN A. CLARK |
Superior Court, New Castle County, November Term, 1914.
ACTION OF TRESPASS ON THE CASE (No. 23, March Term, 1914) by Joseph S. Reynolds against John A. Clark, to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been occasioned through the negligence of the defendant, who was plaintiff's landlord, in so hanging a small board for-rent sign over plaintiff's cellar door, that in opening the same the said sign fell from its fastenings upon plaintiff's head causing the injuries complained of.
The facts appear in the charge of the court.
Verdict for defendant.
Reuben Satterthwaite, Jr., for plaintiff.
James Saulsbury for defendant.
OPINION
RICE, J., charging the jury:
Gentlemen of the jury:--This action was brought on the twenty-third day of January, A. D. 1914, by Joseph S. Reynolds, the plaintiff, against John A. Clark, the defendant, to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been occasioned by the defendant's negligence in hanging a piece of board about twelve or fourteen inches long, ten or twelve inches wide and about one inch thick (a for-rent sign board), from the sill of a window, in such a manner that when the plaintiff, not knowing of the presence of the board raised the cellar doors located in the pavement directly below the window, the board being struck by the doors was unhooked from its fastenings and fell on and injured the plaintiff's head, and as a result of the injuries received his hearing and eyesight were impaired. It is claimed by the plaintiff and not denied, that the building known as No. 629 Madison Street, this city, in which the window and cellar doors were located was rented and occupied by the plaintiff, and the defendant was part owner and landlord of the same.
The plaintiff claims that the alleged accident happened on the twenty-fifth day of January, 1913, but the defendant denies this and contends that if it did happen it was on the tenth day of January, 1913, the same day he hung the sign board there, and claims that the plaintiff cannot recover because the action was not commenced within one year from that date.
The defendant denies that he was guilty of negligence as charged by the plaintiff. He claims that the plaintiff was not injured by the falling of the sign, as alleged, or if he received his injuries at that time, he was guilty of contributory negligence as he knew the sign was placed directly above the cellar doors at the time he raised them. He further claims that he placed the sign board on the building in such a position that the cellar doors when being raised would not strike the sign.
Section 1, Chapter 594, Volume 20, Laws of Delaware, provides:
"That from and after the passage of this act no action for the recovery of damages upon a claim for alleged personal injuries shall be brought after the expiration of one year from the date upon which it is claimed that such alleged injuries were sustained."
The first thing for you to consider and determine is whether from the evidence, the accident, if there was an accident, happened on the twenty-fifth day of January as alleged by the plaintiff, or on the tenth day of January as claimed by the defendant. If you should find from the evidence that the accident, if any, happened on the tenth day of the month the provisions of the above statute apply and it is your duty to return a verdict for the defendant. A further consideration of the evidence by you under such a finding is not necessary.
This action is based on the negligence of the defendant. Negligence is the gist of the action. It must be proved; and the burden of proving the negligence to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial