Sohn v. Katz, 20.

Citation167 A. 864
Decision Date29 July 1933
Docket NumberNo. 20.,20.
PartiesSOHN et ux. v. KATZ et al.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)

Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Passaic County.

Action by William Sohn and another against Harry Katz and another. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants appeal.

Affirmed.

Argued January term, 1933, before BODINE and DONGES, JJ.

Mark Townsend, Jr., of Jersey City, for appellants.

Joseph T. Lieblich, of Paterson, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff William Sohn was engaged in painting a house when he met with the injuries for which he recovered damages. The house being painted adjoined the property of Mrs. Rose Katz. The lots were narrow, and the plaintiff placed his ladder in the Katz yard, whether by permission or otherwise seems immaterial under the proofs. The defendant Herbert Katz, driving his father's car home for lunch, saw the ladder near the Katz driveway. On his way to the garage he passed the ladder, observed its position and the painter on it Having finished lunch he entered the car in order to drive to the railroad station to meet his father. Backing the car down the driveway, and looking merely at the grass he struck the ladder, and the plaintiff fell from the top, suffering severe injuries.

The trial judge submitted the issues of negligence and contributory negligence to the jury.

The landowner's duty of care toward a licensee or trespasser are not here involved. Of course, the landowner is not bound to anticipate the presence of a stranger upon his lands, and is, therefore, not negligent in failing to protect a trespasser from injury. In this case, however, Herbert Katz did know of plaintiff's presence upon his mother's lands. He cannot, therefore, escape liability merely because he chose to back the car without looking where he was going. The father is liable for the negligence of his son while driving his car for his purposes.

Knowing of the presence of the painter and the ladder, the case is similar to that of a locomotive engineer seeing a flock of cattle or a carriage upon the railroad's right of way. Liability cannot be avoided because the operator of the automobile chose not to look, when he could have done so and by so doing would have avoided the injury which resulted from his carelessness. Telfer v. Northern R. R. Co., 30 N. J. Law, 188. The defendants cannot set up the plaintiff's trespass, if it were such, upon the lands of another as an excuse for their own willful, unnecessary, or negligent acts. 1 Shearman &...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Sohn v. Katz
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • January 12, 1934
    ...from Supreme Court. Action by William Sohn and wife against Harry Katz and another. A judgment for plaintiffs was affirmed (167 A. 864, 11 N. J. Misc. 688), and defendants Judgment reversed, and venire de novo awarded. Mark Townsend, Jr., of Jersey City, for appellants. Joseph T. Lieblich, ......
  • Miller v. Weiner
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • August 24, 1933

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT