Walsh v. Hackensack Water Co.

• Decision Date: 20 November 1935
• Docket Number: No. 420.,420.
• Citation: 181 A. 422
• Parties: WALSH v. HACKENSACK WATER CO.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

181 A. 422

WALSH

v. HACKENSACK WATER CO.

No. 420.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Nov. 20, 1935.

Appeal from District Court of Hoboken.

Action by Elizabeth Walsh against the Hackensack Water Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Argued October term, 1935, before TRENCHARD, HEHER, and PERSKIE, JJ.

Samuel William Zerman, of Weehawken, for appellant.

Morton Isaacs, of Union City, for appellee.

PERSKIE, Justice.

Plaintiff, aged seventy-two years, resided with her daughter and son-in-law, tenants of a two-story frame dwelling known as 954 Oak street, in the township of North Bergen, Hudson county, N. J. The Weehawken Building & Loan Association owned the premises. During the cold spell in the middle of February, 1934, the water in the premises froze. At the request of the Building & Loan Association, the Hackensack Water Company, which supplied water to the inhabitants of the township, sent its employees to remedy the situation. In so doing, it apparently became necessary to inspect the connecting pipes leading to the meter. In order to remove the meter, it was necessary to remove the boards which covered the pit that housed the meter. Defendant denied that its employees entered the premises, the contention being that their work was confined to the outside of the building, and although defendant also denied the right or authority of the particular employees here involved, to enter said premises, nevertheless, the proof is rather convincing— at least it was open to the court to so find, that its employees did enter the premises did remove the boards to reach the meter, and did use tools to do so, and, after removing the meter, failed to replace the removed boards and, as a result thereof, the pit was left open and unguarded.

Thereafter, on February 17, 1934, the plaintiff went down with a bucket in her hands to get coal to make a fire in the house. "The light was very dark, it was snowy kind of weather," and as plaintiff turned into the kitchen, to obtain the coal, and opened the door thereof to walk in, she tripped into the uncovered pit.

For the injuries thus sustained, she brought this suit and the trial judge rendered judgment of $200 in her favor and against the defendant.

Appellant now argues that it was error for the trial judge to refuse to nonsuit (1) on plaintiff's opening; (2) at the end of plaintiff's case; and (3) it was error to refuse its motion, at the end of the entire case, for a directed verdict. This argument is devoid of merit. It is elementary that at the time the respective motions were made it was not the function of the court to weigh...