Styles v. P. R. Long Co.

• Decision Date: 29 February 1904
• Citation: 57 A. 448,70 N.J.L. 301
• Parties: STYLES v. P. R. LONG CO.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

57 A. 448

70 N.J.L. 301

STYLES

v. P. R. LONG CO.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

Feb. 29, 1904.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error to Circuit Court, Passaic County.

Action by Hannah M. Styles against the F. R. Long Company. Judgment for defendant and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

William I. Lewis, for plaintiff in error.

De Witt C. Bolton and William B. Gourley, for defendant in error.

SWAYZE, J. The facts of this case are stated in Styles v. Long Co., 67 N. J. Law, 413, 51 Atl. 710. After the reversal of the judgment of the Passaic circuit, the case was retried, and a verdict directed for the defendant, in accordance, as was thought with the views expressed in the opinion of the Supreme Court. The judgment rendered on that verdict is now before us for review. The plaintiff contends that the defendant is liable, because, by its contract with the county authorities, it agreed to provide and maintain the temporary bridge, and to assume all risks pertaining to its construction and use. The argument is that under this contract the defendant had sole control of the bridge; that it invited the public to use it and is therefore liable for failure to light the bridge properly. It is also suggested that the act of 1898 (P. L. 1898, p. 481, c. 207) makes it lawful for any person for whose benefit any contract may have been made to maintain an action thereon in his own name, notwithstanding the consideration of such contract did not move from such person.

The ordinary rule is that an action for a breach of contract, must be brought either by a party to the contract, or some one for whose benefit the contract is made. There are cases where the existence of the contract subjects the parties to duties which are independent of the duty to perform the contract. The duty of carriers of passengers (Marshall v. York, Newcastle & Berwick Railway Co., 11 C. B. 655); the duty of a vendor of drugs (Thomas v. Winchester, 6 N. Y. 397, 57 Am. Dec. 455); the duty of the vendor of a gun to a person for whom it was bought (Langridge v. Levy, 2 Meeson & Welsby, 519; 4 Meeson & Welsby, 337); the duty of a person who participates in the management of a highly dangerous agency (Van Winkle v. American Steam Boiler Co., 52 N. J. Law, 240, 19 Atl. 472); the duty of a county clerk, under the statute, in canceling a mortgage (Appleby v. State, 45 N. J. Law, 161)—are all of them instances where the duty was held to be a positive duty, independent of the contract, although arising out of a state of facts created by the contract. The contract creates the situation which gives rise to the duty, very much as a conveyance of property imposes upon the grantee the duties of an owner of property—duties which would not be increased or diminished by covenants inserted in his deed.

Whether, in any particular case, a right of action in favor of third persons exists, is a question of difficulty, upon which the eases are hard to reconcile upon general principle,'. It is, I think, safe to say that there is no right of action where the duty of another person to exercise care intervenes between the neglect of the defendant and the injury of the plaintiff. A good illustration is afforded by Thomas v. Winchester, above cited. If in that case it had been possible for the retail druggist to ascertain by ordinary care in inspection the fact that the article sold was belladonna, the plaintiff's remedy would have been against his immediate vendor, not against the wholesale dealer. Another illustration is afforded by Marvin Safe Co. v. Ward, 46 N. J. Law, 19—a case very similar to the present case, which was decided by the Supreme Court in 1884, and has never been questioned. The duty to provide and care for certain bridges rests primarily upon the county authorities, and by statute an action is given against the board of chosen freeholders for neglect to perform that duty. Gen. St. p. 307, § 9; Act March 15, 1860, p. 285. There are several cases of actions for failure to erect, rebuild, or repair bridges to be found in our Reports. All of them, except the Marvin Safe Co. Case, were against the county. Ripley v. Freeholders of Essex and Hudson, 40 N. J. Law, 45; Jernee v. Monmouth, 52 N. J. Law, 553, 21 Atl. 295, 11 L. R. A. 416; Freeholders of Morris v. Hough, 55 N. J. Law, 628, 28 Atl. 86; Mahnken v. Freeholders of Monmouth, 62 N. J. Law, 404, 41 Atl. 921; Weeks v. Freeholders of Somerset, 68 N. J. Law, 622, 54 Atl. 826. In the only...