Smith v. Jackson
| Decision Date | 09 November 1903 |
| Citation | 56 A. 118,70 N.J.L. 183 |
| Parties | SMITH v. JACKSON. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Appeal from District Court of Newark.
Action by Thomas Smith against John Jackson. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed.
Argued June term, 1903, before VAN SYCKEL and PORT, JJ.
Samuel Kalisch, for appellant.
Samuel F. Bigelow, for appellee.
The defendant, who was the owner of a house and lot, offered to sell it to the plaintiff, and requested him to go and look at it with the view of purchase. He gave to the plaintiff the keys of the house, that he might inspect it The plaintiff, with his granddaughter, went to the premises, and, while inspecting it, was passing from the cellar of the house, by the stairs, to the first floor. The stairs fell with him, and he was injured. At the trial he proved these facts and his damages, and rested. On the defendant's motion, the court nonsuited him. In this we think there was error. The plaintiff was not a trespasser upon the premises. He was there by the express invitation of the defendant, to do the thing in the doing of which he was injured. Plaintiff was not guilty of negligence in going through the house as he did. He had a right to assume that the stairways were reasonably safe for passage and repassage. The falling of the stairs in ordinary use raised a prima facie presumption of lack of ordinary care on the part of the defendant. The rule of law applicable to this case cannot be distinguished from that held to apply in Phillips v. Library Co., 55 N. J. Law, 307, 27 Atl. 478; Klapproth v. Battle Pin Co. (N. J. Sup.) 43 Atl. 981; Spicer v. Boice, 66 N. J. Law, 434, 49 Atl. 441.
The judgment of the district court will be reversed, and a new trial granted, with costs.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
New York Lubricating Oil Co. v. Pusey
...Lake Ontario Beach Improvement Co., 174 N.Y. 310, 66 N.E. 968, 61 L.R.A. 829; Wright v. Perry, 188 Mass. 268, 74 N.E. 328; Smith v. Jackson, 70 N.J.Law, 183, 56 A. 118; Crogan v. Schiele, 53 Conn. 186, 1 A. 899, 5 A. 55 Am.Rep. 88; Lauritsen v. American Bridge Co., 87 Minn. 518, 92 N.W. 475......
-
Francisco v. Miller
...platform of the fire escape and its collapse upon its use by the plaintiff at the invitation of the decedent. See, Smith v. Jackson, 70 N.J.L. 183, 56 A. 118 (Sup.Ct.1903); Sefler v. Vanderbeek & Sons, 88 N.J.L. 636, 96 A. 1009 (E. & A.1916); Tomkins v. Burlington Island, &c., Co., Tompkins......
-
Boyce v. Brewington.
...the duty extends to giving the invitee notice thereof. Serota v. Salmansohn, 256 Mass. 224, 152 N.E. 242, 46 A.L.R. 517; Smith v. Jackson, 70 N.J.L. 183, 56 A. 118; Rudolph v. Elder, 105 Colo. 105, 95 P.2d 827; Flanigan v. Madison Plaza Grill, 129 N.J.L. 419, 30 A.2d 38; Knapp v. Conn. Thea......
-
Reiter v. Max Marx Color & Chemical Co.
...of Res ipsa loquitur is applicable. Stark v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 102 N.J.L. 694, 133 A. 172 (E. & A.1926); Smith v. Jackson, 70 N.J.L. 183, 56 A. 118 (Sup.Ct.1903); and see Kempf v. New York O. & W. Ry., 112 N.J.L. 118, 169 A. 713 (E. & A.1934); Zboyan v. City of Newark, 104 N.J.L. 2......