Saunders v. E. Hydraulic Pressedbrick Co.

• Decision Date: 20 November 1899
• Citation: 44 A. 630,63 N.J.L. 554
• Parties: SAUNDERS v. EASTERN HYDRAULIC PRESSEDBRICK CO.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

44 A. 630

63 N.J.L. 554

SAUNDERS

v. EASTERN HYDRAULIC PRESSEDBRICK CO.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

Nov. 20, 1899.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error to supreme court.

Action by Frederick L. Saunders against the Eastern Hydraulic Pressed-Brick Company. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

John W. Westcott, for plaintiff in error.

Norman Grey, for defendant in error.

MAGIE, C. J. The judgment in this record was founded upon a nonsuit directed by the trial Judge at the trial of the issue made by the pleadings. The action was in tort for damages for an injury suffered by plaintiff. The bill of exceptions shows that the direction of the trial judge proceeded upon the ground that the evidence did not establish any liability on the part of the defendant to answer for the injury received by the plaintiff for which he was prosecuting his suit, and upon the further ground that plaintiff's conduct was negligent, and his negligence contributed to his injury. The sole ground of complaint urged for the reversal of the judgment is the alleged error of the trial judge in directing the nonsuit. At the time the nonsuit was allowed, the evidence may be considered to have established the following facts: Plaintiff was a workman in the employ of the defendant. One of defendant's buildings in which it carried on its business had a roof, nearly flat, in which was a skylight fitted for two panes of glass, 20x40. The skylight was on about the same plane as the roof, and there was what plaintiff calls a "mutton" (meaning, no doubt, a mullion) dividing the frame, and sustaining the contiguous parts of the panes of glass. One of the panes was broken, and plaintiff, who was a glazier, was directed by some one having authority from defendant to go upon the roof and put a new pane in the place of the broken one. In attempting to do so, plaintiff put his hand upon the centerpiece or mullion, and leaned with so much of the weight of his body upon it as to break it. He had assumed such an attitude or position that upon the breaking of the centerpiece he fell headforemost through the window, and received by that fall the injury of which he complained.

The rule of duty of the master applicable to the case admits of no doubt or dispute. He is bound to take reasonable care to have the place in which he directs his servant to work reasonably safe for the doing of that work, and free from latent, or concealed, dangers. Electric Co. v. Kelly, 57 N. J. Law, 100, 29 Atl. 427; Comben v. Stone Co., 59 N. J. Law, 226, 36 Atl. 473. Had pla...