Taggart v. Bouldin

Decision Date16 October 1933
Docket NumberNo. 100.,100.
Citation168 A. 570
PartiesTAGGART v. BOULDIN.
CourtNew Jersey Supreme Court

Appeal from Circuit Court, Essex County.

Action by Helen Taggart against Bettie M. R. Bouldin. From a judgment of nonsuit, plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Brenner & Kresch, of Bayonne (Alfred Brenner, of Bayonne, of counsel), for appellant.

Green & Green, of Newark (Harry Green, of Newark, of counsel), for respondent.

BROGAN, Chief Justice.

The plaintiff below was nonsuited by the trial judge of the Essex county circuit on the opening made by counsel to the jury. Counsel for the plaintiff, in outlining the case, offered to prove that the plaintiff below suffered severe injury by falling on an icy pavement on the night of February 6, 19.80. The circumstances surrounding this occurrence were that about a week or two prior to that date there had been a fall of snow. The defendant, owner of the premises in front of which the accident happened, had caused the sidewalk to (be shoveled off. The sidewalk is made of flagstones about four feet wide. There is an expanse of lawn between the dwelling house and property line, and the snow was shoveled off apparently to the right and left; some of it being thrown toward the curb and some on the lawn. Soft weather by day caused the snow to melt so that water from the melted snow trickled across the flagstone sidewalk. Colder weather at night froze the water into ice, and the plaintiff, in walking past defendant's premises at night, slipped, fell, and broke her leg.

On motion of defendant, judgment of nonsuit was entered on this opening.

Plaintiff appeals, contending that she should not have been nonsuited and that the opening statement of fact which plaintiff contended would be proven was sufficient to create a case for the jury. This is what counsel said: "The person who shoveled that snow shoveled it back inside of the property line, that is, off the sidewalk and back on the lawn. * * * In shoveling it in that way, this person piled it up back of the sidewalk line. Between the curb and sidewalk there was more snow. Probably some of this snow had also been shoveled over toward the curb." And further: "If we show that this snow was shoveled off this sidewalk in a negligent manner and put upon this property line or back on the lawn so negligently that a person in the exercise of reasonable care would know that there was a danger of its melting and going on the sidewalk and thereby freezing and causing injury, we feel then that we have established a case for your determination."

It will be observed that counsel does not point out with any definiteness how he proposes to prove negligence. Certainly it is not in the manner of shoveling. He does not charge that any act of the defendant created any added danger to pedestrians using the sidewalk.

The appellant, in the argument for reversal in this court, urges that the complaint in the present case is in the identical language of the complaint in Anil v. Lee, 84 N. J. Law, 155, 85 A. 1918. Whether or not that be so is immaterial.

The single question before us is whether, under the opening, the plaintiff should have been nonsuited. Counsel did not state to the court and jury that, in addition to the opening statement, he proposed to prove the facts set forth in his complaint. Now when the trial court has passed upon the legal sufficiency of the facts presented in the opening, appellant cannot in this court fall back upon the facts stated in the complaint to obtain a reversal of the judgment of nonsuit. Since counsel therefore did not rely upon the facts stated in his complaint, he is deemed to have waived reliance upon those facts. Davenport v. Holden, 95 N. J. Law, 197, 112 A. 418; Carey v. Gray, 98 N. J. Law, 217, 119 A. 176.

We do not think that counsel, in opening to the jury, stated a cause of action. The mere allegation of negligence does not give rise to a cause of action unless it follows that a duty has been broached. "Negligence creates no cause of action unless it expresses or establishes a breach of duty." 2 Add. Torts, § 1338; Breese v. Trenton Horse R. R. Co., 52 N. J. Law, 250, 19 A. 204.

There was no duty on the owner of the premises to shovel off this sidewalk. There is no allegation that any action of the defendant increased the hazard that exists on sidewalks during the snow period of the winter. The property owner cannot be made out to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
27 cases
  • Krug v. Wanner
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • November 3, 1958
    ...snow removal and sawdust distribution and its causal relation to the accident may perhaps have been lacking (cf. Taggart v. Bouldin, 111 N.J.L. 464, 168 A. 570 (E. & A.1933); MacGregor v. Tinker Realty Co., 37 N.J.Super. 112, 117 A.2d 45 (App. Div.1955)), there was at least sufficient evide......
  • Honolulu Limited v. Cain
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • December 8, 1966
    ...as to create any unreasonable danger to pedestrians. Riccitelli v. Sternfeld, 394 Ill.App. 63, 109 N.E.2d 921 (1952); Taggert v. Bouldin, 111 N.J.L. 464, 168 A. 570 (1933); Mahoney v. Perreault, 275 Mass. 251, 175 N.E. 467 Furthermore defendant's knowledge of the conditions on the parking l......
  • Passaic Val. Sewerage Com'rs v. Geo. M. Brewster & Son, Inc.
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • June 6, 1960
    ...A.2d 224 (Sup.Ct.1943); McCourt v. Public Service Coordinated Transport, 122 N.J.L. 419, 5 A.2d 34 (E. & A.1939); Taggart v. Bouldin, 111 N.J.L. 464, 168 A. 570 (E. & A.1933); Berkman v. Cohn, 111 N.J.L. 229, 168 A. 290 (E. & A.1933); Lennon v. Atlantic City Railroad Co., 107 N.J.L. 297, 15......
  • Rudd v. Lyceum Dramatic Productions
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • August 2, 1957
    ...200 N.E. 355; Miller v. Exeter Borough, 366 Pa. 336, 77 A.2d 395. Cf. Cook v. Person, 246 Minn. 119, 74 N.W.2d 389.9 Taggart v. Bouldin, 111 N.J.L. 464, 467, 168 A. 570, 571, quoted with approval in Hecht Co. v. Hohensee, 65 App.D.C. 328, 329, 83 F.2d 585, 586. See, also, Dunn v. J. P. Stev......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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