Schumann v. Horn & Hardart Baking Co., A--248

• Decision Date: 02 June 1950
• Docket Number: No. A--248,A--248
• Citation: 73 A.2d 614,8 N.J.Super. 153
• Parties: SCHUMANN et al. v. HORN & HARDART BAKING CO.
• Court: New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division

Page 153

8 N.J.Super. 153

73 A.2d 614

SCHUMANN et al. v. HORN & HARDART BAKING CO.

No. A--248.

Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division.

Argued May 8, 1950.

Decided June 2, 1950.

Edwin G. Scovel, Camden, argued the cause for appellants.

Samuel P. Orlando, Camden, argued the cause for respondent (Orlando, Devine & Tomlin, Camden, attorneys).

Before Judges McGEEHAN, COLIE and EASTWOOD.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

McGEEHAN, S.J.A.D.

The plaintiffs appeal from a judgment in favor of the defendant, entered in the Camden County Court.

The complaint alleged that Lettie Schumann sustained personal injuries on July 12, 1946, when glass from the entrance door of defendant's store fell and struck her leg as she was attempting to enter the store to purchase merchandise. It charged the defendant with negligence.

At the close of the plaintiffs' case, the court granted defendant's motion for dismissal because there was 'no direct evidence of the fact that the sticking of the door was the proximate cause of the glass falling out which caused the injury' and there was no 'direct or logical inference of proof' thereof.

From the proofs, it appeared that the entrance door to defendant's store was made of wood, with a latch on the exterior right hand side. The catch of the door was released by pressing a finger down on the latch. The glass of the door extended from top to bottom and was encased in wooden bevels, both on the outside and on the inside. Lettie Schumann, at about 9:30 a.m. on July 12, 1946, attempted to open the door from the outside by pressing down on the latch with her left hand, because she had a package in her right hand. When it didn't open she shook the latch and pushed the door, but did not touch the glass at any time. In spite of her efforts, the door did not open. She then turned to speak with her sister who accompanied her and, as she turned, three-quarters of the glass from the door fell out, some on the outside and some on the inside of the door. A piece of this falling glass struck her heel and cut it. For over a month before the accident this door had stuck on many occasions when customers tried to open it in order to enter the store. When the door did not open upon depressing the latch and pushing against it with normal force, the customers shook and rattled the door and exerted more than a normal effort in pushing it. On one occasion over a month before the accident the manager, and on at least six occasions during the month a salesgirl or customer, had to open the door from the inside to admit customers who were unable to open the door.

One who invites persons to come upon his premises is under a duty to exercise ordinary care to render the premises reasonably safe for such purpose. Griffin v. De Geeter, 132 N.J.L. 381, 40 A.2d 579 (E. & A.1945). The proprietor of a store is not an insurer, but he is liable (1) for defects of which he knows or (2) defects which have existed for so long a time that, by the exercise of reasonable care, he had both an opportunity to discover and to remedy. Daddetto v. Barbiera, 4 N.J.Super. 479, 67 A.2d 691 (App.Div.1949); Restatement, Torts, N.J.Annot. § 343 (1940). Where an act is negligent it is not necessary to render it the proximate cause that the person committing it could or might have foreseen the particular consequence or precise form of the injury, or the particular manner in which it occurred, if by the exercise of reasonable care it might have been foreseen or anticipated that some injury might result. De Mott v. Knowlton, 100 N.J.L. 296, 126 A. 327 (E. & A.1924).

On a motion for dismissal, either at the end of the...