Sensale v. Applikon Dyeing & Printing Corp.
| Citation | 79 A.2d 316,12 N.J.Super. 171 |
| Decision Date | 07 March 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. A--790,A--790 |
| Parties | SENSALE v. APPLIKON DYEING & PRINTING CORP. et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division |
David Cohn, Paterson, argued the cause for plaintiff-appellant.
John W. Hand, Paterson, argued the cause for defendants-respondents (Evans, Hand & Evans, Paterson, attorneys).
Before Judges McGEEHAN, JAYNE and WM. J. BRENNAN, Jr., JJ.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
McGEEHAN, S.J.A.D.
The defendants' motion for dismissal made at the close of the plaintiff's case was granted in the Passaic County Court and the plaintiff appeals.
This negligence action was brought under the Death Act for the death of Anthony Sensale. Sensale was an employee of Applikon Textile Dyers & Printers, Inc., a corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'Textile') which operated a textile dyeing and printing plant in Paterson. Textile is not a defendant in this action. During the afternoon of December 14, 1948 Sensale and other employees of Textile were engaged in turning a jay box in Textile's plant 'a quarter way around' when Sensale was electrocuted. This jay box was a large machine in the form of an upright 'J' which was operated by electricity. The jay box involved was a new machine which had been built and assembled in Textile's plant, and it had been installed less than two months when the accident to Sensale occurred. In the installation, wires were strung from the rafters over the machine to a motor attached to one side of the jay box, and wires were also strung from the motor down to a switch box which was also attached to the side of the jay box below the motor. While the jay box was being moved, Sensale was holding a part of the metal frame of the jay box. There was no evidence that the jay box itself was defective in any way, but there was evidence from which a jury might have inferred that the electrical wiring installed for the operation of the jay box was negligently done, in that the wires were not enclosed in a metal conduit, open wires were inserted into a rough or sharp opening in the switch box, and there was no proper ground, and that Sensale's death while moving the jay box was caused by this negligent wiring. The wiring had been done by one Dargenio, an electrician employed by Textile, under the direct supervision of one Notte, the chief engineer employed by Textile, who had instructed Dargenio to use 'open wires.'
The defendants are Berthum Corporation (formerly known as Applikon Dyeing & Printing Corporation, which should not be confused with Textile), Humbert Corporation, and one Arthur Nazzaro, president of Textile, the employing corporation.
The plaintiff sought to hold Berthum Corporation and Humbert Corporation liable on the theory that they owned the jay box involved and that they could have reasonably foreseen the danger 'in the use of the equipment which when tied up with electric current would be productive of injury and death to anyone coming in contact with it.' There was testimony that machinery (without any identifying particulars) was purchased by Berthum Corporation and Humbert Corporation in December 1947, and that Humbert Corporation on January 5, 1948 leased machinery (again without any identifying particulars) to Textile for a period beginning January 1, 1948 and ending December 1, 1952; but there was no evidence to connect either defendant corporation with the jay box involved or any equipment thereon or used in connection therewith. Therefore the dismissal as to the Berthum Corporation and the Humbert Corporation was proper. We note that counsel for the appellant, who also tried the case below, conceded as much on the argument of defendants' motion, when he stated to the court below that he was willing to concede 'that there might be a fair justification--my own opinion is there is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Miller v. Muscarelle
...thereby, even though liability may also attach to the corporation for the tort.'' See also Sensale v. Applikon Dyeing & Printing Corp., 12 N.J.Super. 171, 175, 79 A.2d 316 (App.Div.1951); Stacy v. Greenberg, 9 N.J. 390, 397, 88 A.2d 619, 622 (1952), referring to the fact that the statutory ......
-
In re Transcolor Corp.
...act. United States Liability Ins. Co. v. Haidinger-Hayes, Inc. , 83 Cal.Rptr. 418, 463 P.2d 770 (1970); Sensale v. Applikon Dyeing & Printing Corp., 12 N.J.Super. 171, 79 A.2d 316 (1951). Hemelt v. Pontier, 165 B.R. at 799-800. See also State, Cent. Collection Unit v. Kossol, 138 Md.App. 33......
-
In re Pontier, Bankruptcy No. 91-5-4084-JS. Adv. No. 91-5365-JS.
...Liability Ins. Co. v. Haidinger-Hayes, Inc. 1 Cal.3d 586, 83 Cal. Rptr. 418, 463 P.2d 770 (1970); Sensale v. Applikon Dyeing & Printing Corp., 12 N.J.Super. 171, 79 A.2d 316 (1951). The superior or managing officer of a corporation cannot be held liable for the misconduct of a subordinate s......
-
Van Natta Mechanical Corp. v. Di Staulo
...412, 416, 231 A.2d 386 (App.Div.1967), certif. denied, 50 N.J. 409, 235 A.2d 901 (1967) (quoting Sensale v. Applikon Dyeing & Printing Corp., 12 N.J.Super. 171, 175, 79 A.2d 316 (App.Div.1951)).] A corporate officer or principal is liable for tortious injury to another even if he was acting......