Terranella v. Union Bldg. & Const. Co., A--44

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
Citation70 A.2d 753,3 N.J. 443
Docket NumberNo. A--44,A--44
Decision Date09 January 1950

Dominick F. Pachella, Hackensack, argued the cause for appellant (Pachella & Chary, Hackensack, attorneys).

John W. Hand, Paterson, argued the cause for respondent Union Bldg. & Const. Co. (Evans, Hand & Evans, Paterson, attorneys).

Oscar R. Wilensky, Passaic, argued the cause for respondent City of Passaic.

The opinion of the court was delivered by


Appellant's eleven-year-old son was fatally injured while playing in a public playground in the City of Passaic. The City had entered into a contract with the respondent Union Building and Construction Co. for the installation of a storm sewer crossing the playground. About a week prior to the accident the construction company had placed on the playground fourteen concrete pipes each four feet long, five feet in diameter and weighing 5180 pounds. The pipes were not tied or secured and no watchman was placed over them.

During the week children in the playground had been playing with the pipes and rolling them around upon the ground. On the afternoon of the accident about eight boys between the ages of nine and twelve were rolling the pipes. The decedent fell between two pipes and sustained the fatal injuries. His father brought this action as administrator Ad prosequendum against the two respondents and the Passaic Board of Education.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court directed a verdict for all three defendants. It appeared from the proof adduced at the trial that the Board of Education did not own or control the land on which the pipes were placed and was not a party to the contract for the building of the storm sewer. Verdict was directed for the City on the ground that the construction company was an independent contractor whose negligence, if any, could not be imputed to the municipality. The court directed a verdict for the construction company on the ground that the pipes were not inherently dangerous and no peril would have been created if the children had not caused them to roll. The judgments in favor of the City and the construction company were appealed to the Appellate Division and the case was certified here on our own motion. Appeal from the judgment in favor of the Board of Education has been voluntarily discontinued.

The record shows the Union Building and Construction Co. was an independent contractor and its employees engaged in building the storm sewer were not under the control or supervision of the City except in the broadest and most general sense. Where the work to be done is not Per se a nuisance and injury results from the negligence of an independent contractor or his servants in the execution of it, the contractor alone is liable unless the owner is in default in employing an unskillful or improper person as the contractor. Sarno v. Gulf Refining Co., 99 N.J.L. 340, 124 A. 145 (Sup.Ct. 1924), aff'd 102 N.J.L. 223, 130 A. 919 (E. & A. 1925); Healy v. Sayre, 113 N.J.L. 308, 174 A. 534 (E. & A. 1934). The appellant argues that the method of construction of the sewer resulted in the creation and maintenance of a nuisance but there is nothing in the record to support this contention, nor is it suggested the contractor lacked the requisite skill or qualifications for the work undertaken.

The verdict in favor of the respondent City of Passaic was proper. We come to this conclusion independently of the immunity we think is granted to the municipality under R.S. 40:9--2, N.J.S.A., which provides: 'No municipality or county shall be liable for injury to the person from the use of any public grounds, buildings or structures, any law to the contrary notwithstanding.' See Falcone v. Bd. Education, Newark, 4 A.2d 687, 17 N.J.Misc. 75 (Ct.Com.Pleas 1939).

The trial court predicated its direction of a verdict in favor of the construction company entirely upon the case of Friedman v. Snare & Triest Co., 71 N.J.L. 605, 61 A. 401, 403, 70 L.R.A. 147, 108 Am.St.Rep. 764, 2 Ann.Cas. 497 (E. & A. 1905). There, however, the decision rested upon certain facts materially at variance with the facts in this case. The court found the girders which injured the plaintiff's child were stored on private property subject to a public easement for use as a sidewalk. The evidence showed the child was injured not while exercising the right of the easement for passage but in the course of playing about or resting upon the piled girders. This, the court found, exceeded the invitation implied in the easement and placed the child in the status of a licensee or trespasser. In this connection, the court said: 'And further, an individual member of the public, if specially damnified by the nuisance while in the exercise of his rights in the street, may maintain a private action. But this refers only to parties injured while using the street as a street, and not to those whose injuries arise from their attempted use of the obstructing materials for their own purposes, whether of pleasure, convenience, or profit. For the building materials themselves do not in any sense become public property by being allowed to remain in the street. And neither a traveler, nor an idler, nor even a playful child, can gain rights against the landowner, or against his agent who stands in his rights, by using such building materials as a resting place or playground. In the absence of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
38 cases
  • Mavrikidis v. Petullo
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • March 11, 1998
    ...in employing an unskillful or improper person as the contractor.' [Id. at 558, 108 A.2d 873 (quoting Terranella v. Union Bldg. & Constr. Co., 3 N.J. 443, 446-47, 70 A.2d 753 (1950)).] The Barnard court concluded that there was no basis for holding the principal liable in that case, noting t......
  • Baltimore Gas and Elec. Co. v. Lane, 51
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • September 1, 1994
    ...reasonable care was a question that should have been submitted to the jury for its determination." Terranella v. Union Building & Construction Co., 3 N.J. 443, 70 A.2d 753, 756 (1950). The eight-year-old plaintiff was neither a trespasser nor a bare licensee on the land where the defendant'......
  • Kenney v. Scientific, Inc.
    • United States
    • Superior Court of New Jersey
    • April 3, 1985
    ...Majestic Realty Associates, Inc. v. Toti Contracting Co., 30 N.J. 425, 430-431, 153 A.2d 321 (1959); Terranella v. Union Bldg. & Construction Co., 3 N.J. 443, 446-447, 70 A.2d 753 (1950). However, in Majestic Realty Associates, Inc. v. Toti Contracting Co. the Court held that where the work......
  • Moning v. Alfono, 55669
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • June 15, 1977
    ...886, 894 (1934).20 Id.21 James, Scope of Duty in Negligence Cases, 47 N.W.U.L.Rev. 778, 782 (1953). See Terranella v. Union Building & Construction Co., 3 N.J. 443, 70 A.2d 753 (1950)."A product designed to be used by adults who may be expected to exercise care may not be dangerous, but whe......
  • 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