Ryerson v. Bathgate

• Decision Date: 03 March 1902
• Citation: 67 N.J.L. 337,51 A. 708
• Parties: RYERSON v. BATHGATE et al.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

51 A. 708

67 N.J.L. 337

RYERSON

v. BATHGATE et al.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

March 3, 1902.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error to circuit court, Essex county.

Action by Ann' Eliza Ryerson against James E. Bathgate and Henry N. Swift. Judgment for defendants and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

Edward Wade Benjamin, for plaintiff in error.

Louis Hood, for defendants in error.

PITNEY, J. This was an action of tort for negligence, and upon the trial the plaintiff's evidence tended to prove the following facts: The plaintiff, a woman of 61 years of age, kept a small place of business in Newark, and the defendants were the proprietors of a meat shop near by, which was in the charge of one Silvernail, as manager. The plaintiff owned a domestic cat, of which she desired to be rid, and this fact she made known to Silvernail, who told her that the defendants needed a cat, and suggested that she bring it over to them. This she did a few days later, and on arriving at the meat shop found Silvernail, and also Mr. Swift, one of the defendants. As the plaintiff arrived at the place, the cat jumped from her arms and ran home, whereupon Mr. Swift said, "You must bring her over later." Accordingly, a few days later, plaintiff again carried over the cat, and upon entering the defendants' premises found Silvernail there alone. As she entered, she told him that he must put the cat in a closet, or else she would run away again. Silvernail thereupon walked to the opposite side of the room, opened a door, and said, "Put her in here." Plaintiff supposed it to be a closet, as she had requested him to put the cat in a closet. She testified that Silvernail only partially opened the door, "so that she could just get in to get the cat in," and that, as he opened the door, she anxiously ran and stooped to put the cat down, and did not see beyond the door, partly because it was dark there, and partly because a butcher's frock was hanging on the door. She says that she had the cat in her arms at the time, and it was scratching at her, and she was anxious to get the cat out of her arms; that she did not look in, but took it for granted the opening led to a closet. In fact the door opened upon a flight of stairs leading down to the cellar, and she stepped inside without looking, fell downstairs, and sustained Injuries, to recover damages for which she brought this action against the defendants. Upon the evidence above indicated the plaintiff rested her case, whereupon the court granted the defendants' motion to nonsuit. To this ruling exception was taken, and the writ of error brings that ruling here for review. From the evidence the jury would have had a right to infer that the entrance of the plaintiff upon the defendants' premises was for their mutual benefit, and not for her benefit solely. Thereupon the plaintiff invokes the rule of law which was made the basis of the decision of this court in Phillips v. Library Co., 55 N. J. Law, 307, 27 Atl. 478, and is exemplified in other recent cases, including that of Furey v. Railroad Co. (decided by this court at the present term) 51 Atl. 505, viz., that the owner or occupier of lands, who, by invitation, express or implied, induces persons to come upon his premises, or to make use of the premises for a given purpose, is under a duty to exercise ordinary care to render the premises reasonably safe for such use. The application of this rule always depends upon the particular facts and circumstances of the case under consideration. The owner's liability for the condition of the premises is only...