Rosacci v. U. S. Pipe & Foundry Co.
| Citation | 8 A.2d 707,123 N.J.L. 357 |
| Decision Date | 16 October 1939 |
| Docket Number | No. 12.,12. |
| Parties | ROSACCI v. UNITED STATES PIPE & FOUNDRY CO. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey) |
Appeal from Supreme Court.
Action to recover for the death of one who died from silicosis poisoning by John Rosacci, administrator, against United States Pipe & Foundry Company. From a judgment of nonsuit, the plaintiff appeals.
Reversed.
Irvin M. Lichtenstein, John R. DiMona, and George G. Tartar, all of Camden, for appellant.
John A. Hartpence, of Jersey City, Thorn Lord, of Trenton, and Mark Townsend, of Jersey City, for respondent.
The appeal in this case is from a judgment of nonsuit at the close of the plaintiff's case. The action was brought by the administrator ad prosequendum of the deceased under the Death Act, N.J.S.A. 2:47-1 et seq., and also as his general administrator. There was evidence for the jury tending to show that the deceased, a young and vigorous man, died of silicosis poisoning. The building in which he worked was a wooden structure with a dirt floor. No provision whatever was made for ventilating the same nor were there any exhaust fans. He had been in the defendant's employ for sometime and was engaged in rendering services in connection with the lining of pipes with a mixture of cement and sand. The mixing machine, from which the concrete to be placed in the pipes was made, was in the building where he worked, and the proofs indicate that the place of work was excessively dusty. Both the cement and sand were there sieved before being placed in the mixer and the air containing a concentrate of dangerous dust was ever present.
The basis of the action was the failure of the employer to use reasonable care to provide the deceased with a reasonably safe place in which to perform his, work, and in the failure to give him warning of latent danger. Death from silicosis caused by dust laden air in the place of work is a well recognized fact. Proofs of the failure to make any reasonable provision for the protection of workmen in such dangerous places and the failure to exercise any care whatsoever to eliminate the danger so far as reasonably practical presented a question for the jury's determination. Under such circumstances the granting of a nonsuit was error. Davis v. New Jersey Zinc Co., 116 N.J.L. 103, 182 A. 850.
Revised statutes 34:6-48, N.J.S.A. 34:6-48, also provides as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Estelle v. Board of Ed. of Borough of Red Bank
...we have been discussing has been characterized as no more than a restatement of common-law requirements. Rosacci v. U.S. Pipe & Foundry Co., 123 N.J.L. 357, 8 A.2d 707 (E. & A.1939). But that was said in an action against a private employer and not a governmental body. In general, a master ......
-
Canonico v. Celanese Corp. of America, Plastics Division, A--642
...4 N.J. 293, 72 A.2d 511, (1950); Davis v. New Jersey Zinc Co., 116 N.J.L. 103, 182 A. 850 (E. & A. 1936); Rosacci v. U.S. Pipe & Foundry Co., 123 N.J.L. 357, 8 A.2d 707 (E. & A. 1939). We do not find these cases analogous. The Weehawken case deals with a conviction for violation of an ordin......
-
Gurzo v. American Smelting & Ref. Co.
...778; Downing v. Oxweld Acetylene Co., 112 N.J.L. 25, 169 A. 709, affirmed 113 N.J.L. 399, 174 A. 900; and Rosacci v. United States Pipe & Foundry Co., 123 N.J.L. 357, 8 A.2d 707. We do not regard any of these cases in point. Each deals with a toxic substance which was proven to have directl......
-
Essex Foundry v. Biondella
...34:15-31, N.J.S.A. 34:-15-31), he employed the stated form of action to recover his resultant damages. Cf. Rosacci v. United States Pipe & Foundry Co., 123 N.J.L. 357, 8 A.2d 707. Appellants notified their named insurance carriers of this suit by Biondella, and called upon them to defend it......