Rogers v. Roe & Conover

• Decision Date: 29 March 1907
• Citation: 66 A. 408,74 N.J.L. 615
• Parties: ROGERS v. ROE & CONOVER.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

66 A. 408

74 N.J.L. 615

ROGERS

v. ROE & CONOVER.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

March 29, 1907.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error to Circuit Court, Essex County.

Action by Louis H. Rogers against Roe & Conover. From a judgment of nonsuit, plaintiff brings error. Reversed.

Samuel W. Boardman, Jr., for plaintiff in error. Sherrard Depue, for defendant is error.

GUMMERE, C. J. This suit is brought to recover compensation for injuries received by the plaintiff through a fall while at work upon a ladder, and in the service of the defendants, at their store in the city of Newark. The defendants were engaged in the business of selling plumbers' and steamfitters' supplies. These supplies were kept in rows of bins, or pigeon holes, which had been constructed along the walls of their store, and which extended from the floor nearly to the ceiling. The lower rows of bins were deeper than the upper ones, and this method of construction left a ledge, or shelf, about three feet from the floor. For the purpose of affording access to the upper rows, "trolley" leaders were provided, which were each of them suspended by two grooved wheels from a track or iron pipe, running along the walls, and fastened to them near the ceiling. To render the ladders easily movable along this pipe or track, rubber rollers were affixed to their sides at the points of their contact with. the ledge or shelf above described, and revolved along it as the ladders were shifted from place to place. As these ladders were originally constructed, there was below each of the grooved wheels by which the ladders were suspended a metal projection or lug, about an inch and a half long and half an inch wide, which extended under, and in close proximity to, the iron pipe or track, for the purpose of preventing the grooved wheels from leaving the track. The ladder upon which the plaintiff was at work when the accident occurred had one of these lugs broken off. The plaintiff had mounted it for the purpose of taking some steamfitters' supplies from a bin in one of the upper tiers. This bin was a little to one side of the ladder, and its position made it necessary for the plaintiff to lean out beyond the side of the ladder to accomplish his purpose. The throwing of his weight to one side caused first one of the grooved wheels to leave the track, and then the other, and the ladder, with the plaintiff upon it, fell to the floor. The plaintiff had no knowledge of any previous occurrence of the kind. This lug had been broken from the ladder more than two years before the occurrence of the accident, and the contention of the plaintiff at the trial was that the defendants were chargeable with knowledge of its defective condition, and that their failure to repair it was a neglect of the duty which they owed him of using reasonable care in furnishing him with safe appliances for his work. The trial judge considered that the failure to repair the ladder was a neglect of this duty, but held that its defective condition was obvious, and that therefore the plaintiff assumed the risk of dangers resulting from the absence of the lug. For this...