Scamporino v. Chapman Chevrolet Co., 5.

• Decision Date: 02 January 1945
• Docket Number: No. 5.,5.
• Parties: SCAMPORINO et al. v. CHAPMAN CHEVROLET CO.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

132 N.J.L. 302

40 A.2d 347

SCAMPORINO et al.

v.CHAPMAN CHEVROLET CO.

No. 5.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Jan. 2, 1945.

Action by Frank Scamporino, in infant, by his next friend, Andrew Scamporino, and Andrew Scamporino, individually, against the Chapman Chevrolet Company, a corporation, for injuries to infant plaintiffs from burns caused by ignition of gasoline removed by him and other boys from the tank of a truck parked by defendant on a vacant lot adjoining defendant's place of business. From a judgment of nonsuit, plaintiffs appeal.

Affirmed.

Appeal from Common Pleas Court, Bergen County.

Ward & McGinnis and Louis C. Friedman, both of Paterson (Peter J. McGinnis, of Paterson, of counsel), for appellants.

McCarter, English & Egner, of Newark (Verling C. Enteman, of Newark, and Leon R. Ross, of South Orange, of counsel), for appellee.

October term, 1944, before BROGAN, C. J., and DONGES and PERSKIE, JJ.

PERSKIE, Justice.

The question for decision in this negligence case is whether the trial judge erred in granting defendant's motion for a nonsuit. We answer the question in the negative.

The infant plaintiff by his father as his next friend, and the father individually, sued defendant to recover their respective damages resulting from the serious burns which the infant suffered by reason of the alleged actionable negligence of the defendant (creation of a dangerous agency) in the circumstances hereinafter stated. At the conclusion of the proofs submitted by and for the plaintiffs, none were offered by or for the defendant, defendant moved for a nonsuit on the ground that the proofs failed to disclose any actionable negligence on its part. Having concluded that defendant breached no duty, if any it owed the infant plaintiff, either as a ‘trespasser,’ or ‘licensee,’ or ‘invitee,’ and that the asserted liability of the defendant on the theory of having created a ‘dangerous agency’ did ‘not apply’ to the facts of the case at bar, the trial judge granted defendant's motion for a nonsuit and entered judgment accordingly. Hence this appeal.

The undisputed proofs are as follows: Defendant was ‘engaged in the business of buying and selling new and used automobiles' and ‘trucks' in the Town of Grantwood, Borough of Cliffside Park, N. J. In ‘connection’ with its business, defendant used a vacant plot, not owned by it, consisting of about ‘twenty city lots', located in the ‘rear’ of its place of business and facing ‘Gorge Road,’ for the purpose of parking its overflow cars. Children played on this plot. On the very day of the accident, April 2, 1941, Henry Taylor, aged 13, Charles Condrow and Junior Maniere, each 10 years of age, and the infant plaintiff, then 8 years of age, were playing on one of the ‘rocks' at or near the spot on the lot where the Ford truck in possession of the defendant had been parked for some time. One of the children decided to take some gasoline out of the tank of the Ford truck. Taylor, the oldest boy, opened the door of the truck, removed the front seat, unscrewed the cap of the gasoline tank which was not locked, dipped a rag into the tank, ‘squeezed out the rag’ into an empty paint can held by the infant plaintiff who was standing on the running board of the truck. There is proof that the infant plaintiff himself, as well as Taylor, removed some of the gasoline in the stated manner. In the process of wringing out the rag some of the gasoline spilled upon the left side of the infant's pants. After the can had been approximately half filled with gasoline, Taylor told the infant plaintiff that he was going to build a fire. Thereupon the infant plaintiff walked away to the sidewalk adjacent to the lot where he bounced a tennis ball on the sidewalk trying to kill ants. Taylor dumped the drained gasoline on the fire which was about ten feet from the truck. Thereafter Taylor wrapped a rag around a stick and dipped the stick into the fire in order ‘to make a torch.’ The rag, of course, started to burn and Taylor commenced walking toward the infant plaintiff. While so walking the fire began to burn the stick. As the fire spread to where Taylor held on to the stick, he threw the stick away. The burning stick came into contact with the spot where the pants of the infant had been saturated with the gasoline. The clothes of the infant plaintiff caught fire and he received the burns which resulted in his protracted hospitalization and in the consequential damages to the father.

Not weighing the stated proofs but treating them and the legitimate inferences to be drawn therefrom as true, we are clear that no fair minded men could honestly differ as to the proper conclusions to be drawn therefrom, namely, that they fail to establish actionable negligence on the part of the defendant and hence the trial judge was not obliged to submit the case to the jury. Cf. Dobrow v. Hertz, 125 N.J.L. 347, 348, 15 A.2d 749, Repasky v. Novich, 113 N.J.L. 126, 172 A....