Sommer v. Pub. Serv. Corp. of N.J.
| Court | United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey) |
| Citation | 75 A. 892,79 N.J.L. 349 |
| Parties | SOMMER v. PUBLIC SERVICE CORPORATION OF NEW JERSEY. |
| Decision Date | 21 March 1910 |
Action by Abraham Sommer, administrator of Samuel Sommer, against the Public Service Corporation of New Jersey. Judgment for plaintiff on demurrer to declaration.
Argued November term, 1909, before SWAYZE, TRENCIIARD, and PARKER, JJ.
Chauncey G. Parker, for plaintiff.
Leonard J. Tynan and Lefferts S. Hoffman, for defendant.
This is a demurrer to a declaration. The declaration alleges, in effect, that the defendant company was the owner of premises upon the roof of which it maintained wires carrying a deadly current of electricity; that such wires were apparently safe, but in fact were improperly and defectively insulated; that the dangerous condition of the wires was known to the defendant and was unknown to plaintiff's intestate; that plaintiff's intestate was in the employ of a contractor who was engaged by the defendant to build a cupola upon the roof of such premises; that the decedent necessarily in the course of such employment entered upon such roof in close proximity to such wires, and in the course of his work came in contact with one of the wires and was killed thereby.
In support of the demurrer, the defendant contends that the declaration shows contributory negligence upon the part of the decedent. We think not. Certainly working in close proximity to wires which were "apparently safe," and without knowledge of their dangerous character, cannot be said to be negligence as a matter of law. Brooks v. Consolidated Gas Co., 70 N.J.Law, 211, 57 Atl. 396.
It next urged that the declaration is bad because it is argued it does not show how and why the decedent came in contact with the wires. We see no merit in this contention. The declaration avers that the decedent necessarily in the course of his employment worked in close proximity to the deadly wires, and so came in contact with one of them. Clearly this is sufficient on general demurrer. Davey v. Erie R. R. Co., 69 N.J.Law, 50, 54 Atl. 233.
The next objection is that the declaration fails to show that the defendant company was under any duty to warn the decedent of the dangerous character of the wires. We think the objection not well taken. The general rule is unquestioned that the owner or occupier of land who by invitation, express or implied, induces persons to come upon his premises, is under a duty to exercise ordinary care to render the premises reasonably safe for such purposes. Phillips v. Library Co., 55 N.J.Law, 307, 27 Atl. 478; Nolan v. Bridgeton, etc., Traction Co., 74 N.J.Law, 559, 65 Atl. 992. But the argument seems to be that the declaration fails to allege that the dangerous condition of the wires was known to the defendant and unknown to the decedent. To this it is a sufficient answer to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Philibert v. Benjamin Ansehl Co.
......Co., 325 Mo. 381, 28 S.W.2d 1035; Smith v. K. C. Pub. Serv. Co., 328 Mo. 979, 43 S.W.2d 548;. Tabler v. ...361, 147 S.W. 165;. Sommer v. Pub. Serv. Corp., 79 N. J. L. 349, 75 A. 892; Julian ......
-
Philibert v. Ansehl Company., 35207.
...v. K.C. Jockey Club, 334 Mo. 99, 66 S.W. (2d) 119; Graham v. Brandt Shoe Co., 165 Mo. App. 361, 147 S.W. 165; Sommer v. Pub. Serv. Corp., 79 N.J.L. 349, 75 Atl. 892; Julian v. Sinclair Oil & Gas Co., 168 Okla. 192, 32 Pac. (2d) 31; Young's Admr. v. Farmers & Depositors Bank, 267 Ky. 845, 10......
-
Gudnestad v. Seaboard Coal Dock Co., s. A--107
...duty in the defendant to render the premises reasonably safe for the purpose of the plaintiff's engagement. Sommer v. Public Service Corp., 79 N.J.L. 349, 75 A. 892 (Sup.Ct.1910). But the Appellate Division decided this defendant was then absolved from that duty because the liability create......
-
Beck v. Monmouth Lumber Co.
...bound to use reasonable care to see that the place in which the work was to the performed was reasonable safe. Sommer v. Public Service Corporation, 79 N.J.L. 349, 75 A. 892; Kappertz v. McEwan & Son, 106 N.J.L. 484, 150 A. 412. On the week-end during which the repair work was to be perform......