Rom v. Huber

• Decision Date: 07 November 1919
• Citation: 108 A. 361
• Parties: ROM v. HUBER.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

108 A. 361

ROM

v. HUBER.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Nov. 7, 1919.

(Syllabusbythe Court.)

Argued June term, 1919, before GUMMERE, C. J., and MINTURN and BLACK, JJ.

Kalisch & Kalisch, of Newark, for appellant.

Raymond, Clancy, Marsh & Ellis, of Newark, for respondent.

BLACK, J. The defendant in this case was sued to recover damages for personal injuries. The trial resulted in a verdict for the defendant. The essential and undisputed evidence in the case is that the plaintiff, Martin Rom, on the night of February 21, 1918, went to a Turkish bath establishment conducted by the defendant, Frank Huber, in the city of Newark, for the purpose of taking a bath. After spending some time in the office and paying the required fee, he went to the place provided for undressing, and from there to the hot room and later on to the steam room. It is further undisputed that while in the steam room the plaintiff fell and sustained the injuries for which he brought the suit. The plaintiff was the only witness to testify to the circumstances of the fall. His testimony is that he proceeded directly 'from the hot room to the door of the steam room. As soon as he opened the door, he looked down and saw a white spot, which looked like soap. Before he could change his step, he stepped on it, slipped, and fell. The allegation is that the defendant was negligent in allowing the soap to be on the floor. The defendant therefore should be chargeable for the injuries sustained.

The plaintiff assigns four reasons why the judgment entered should be set aside and reversed. Two refer to the charge of the trial judge and two to his refusal to charge as requested.

The passage in the charge complained of is based directly upon the decision of the Court of Errors and Appeals, in the case of Schnatterer v. Bamberger & Co., 81 N. J. Law, 558, 79 Atl. 324, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1077, Ann. Cas. 1912D, 139. The injury sustained in that case was by a customer tripping in a department store in the city of Newark. The trial judge in this case charged the jury the principles of law applied in that case, viz. that the defendant's duty to the plaintiff was to exercise reasonable care to maintain the premises in a safe condition. His duty to the plaintiff was satisfied when he used reasonable care to maintain the premises in a safe condition for the proper use by the plaintiff. The defendant is not an insurer of the safety of his patrons against accidents. It must appear that the condition...