Sefler v. Vanderbeck & Sons, Inc.

• Decision Date: 06 March 1916
• Docket Number: No. 116.,116.
• Citation: 88 N.J.Law 636,96 A. 1009
• Parties: SEFLER v. VANDERBECK & SONS, Inc.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

96 A. 1009

88 N.J.Law 636

SEFLER

v. VANDERBECK & SONS, Inc.

No. 116.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

March 6, 1916.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Hudson County.

Action by Magdalena Sefler, administratrix, etc., of Vincenty Sefler, deceased, against Vanderbeck & Sons, Incorporated. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Marshall Van Winkle, of Jersey City, for appellant. Herbert Clark Gilson, of Jersey City, for appellee.

TRENCHARD, J. The plaintiff's intestate fell from a balcony in the defendant company's building, where he had gone to buy lumber, and was killed, and this suit was brought to recover damages for his death. The jury found for the plaintiff, and the defendant appeals from the consequent judgment.

We are of the opinion that the judgment must be affirmed.

It will be convenient first to deal with the propriety of the refusal of the defendant's motion for a direction of a verdict. We think it was properly denied. The argument in favor of the motion is rested upon the grounds: (1) That the defendant had performed its duty to the decedent; (2) that the decedent exceeded the bounds of his invitation; and (3) that the evidence raised merely a "conjecture" as to how the accident happened. We are constrained to think that the argument is ill founded as to matters of fact, and erroneous as to matters of law.

Of course, in passing upon a motion for a directed verdict, the court cannot weigh the evidence, but is bound to concede to be true all evidence which supports the view of the party against whom the motion is made, and must give him the benefit of all legitimate inferences which are to be drawn therefrom in his favor. So considered, it was clearly open to the jury to find the following matters of fact: The defendant company was a dealer in lumber. The plaintiff's intestate visited its premises for the purpose of buying a stick of lumber. He was directed by the defendant's servants to the defendant's superintendent, and by him shown some lumber on the first floor. Not finding there what was wanted, the superintendent said, "Come upstairs and I will show you lumber," and he conducted the decedent upstairs to and along a balcony or elevated platform, about three feet wide, in front of the stalls where the lumber was kept. There was a railing about three feet high, on the outside of the balcony, supported by uprights. The ends of the rail were designed to rest in sockets or grooves on the top of the uprights. In passing along decedent placed his hand upon the rail, when it came off and decedent fell 11 feet to the ground floor, and was killed. This structure, consisting of the uprights and guard rail, had been in use for some years, and the rail was always removed when lumber was passed up from the ground floor to the stalls back of the balcony. On such occasions it sometimes happened that the rail was not immediately replaced properly in the sockets. On the occasion of the happening of the accident in question, the rail did not fall because of any break, nor because any part of the structure broke. It fell because it was not placed in the grooves or sockets of...