Barbero v. Pellegrino

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Barbero v. Pellegrino

151 A. 379, 8 N.J. Misc. 691, 1930 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 103

DecidedAugust 20, 1930

StatusPublished

This text of 151 A. 379 (Barbero v. Pellegrino) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barbero v. Pellegrino, 151 A. 379, 8 N.J. Misc. 691, 1930 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 103 (N.J. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This suit was brought to recover compensation for personal injuries. The plaintiff was employed as a carpenter by Letz and Katz, who are the owners of and were engaged in erecting an apartment house in Paterson. The defendant was employed by the owners of the building to do the mason work thereon. While the plaintiff was standing in front of this building preparatory to going to work in the early morning of June 4th, 1927, he was struck by a brick which fell from a platform or a window ledge of the building. His claim was that the fall of the brick was the result of negligence on the part of an employe of the defendant, and that the latter was responsible. The court charged the jury that the fall of the brick spoke negligence on the part of the person who was responsible for its fall. The trial resulted in a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant applied for and was allowed a rule to show cause why this verdict should not [692]*692be set aside, all exceptions at the trial by the defendant being reserved.

The only ground for making the rule absolute which has-been argued before us is that the trial judge erroneously-instructed the jury that there was a presumption from the mere happening of the accident that it was the result of negligence on the part of the defendant’s employe that caused the brick to fall. The instruction of the court to the jiiry upon this matter was excepted to at the close of the charge-by counsel for the defendant. That exception being reserved,, the proper court in which to test the validity of this instruction is a court of review on appeal from the judgment entered in the case. Eor this reason we conclude that the rule-to show cause should be discharged.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

This suit was brought to recover compensation for personal injuries. The plaintiff was employed as a carpenter by Letz and Katz, who are the owners of and were engaged in erecting an apartment house in Paterson. The defendant was employed by the owners of the building to do the mason work thereon. While the plaintiff was standing in front of this building preparatory to going to work in the early morning of June 4th, 1927, he was struck by a brick which fell from a platform or a window ledge of the building. His claim was that the fall of the brick was the result of negligence on the part of an employe of the defendant, and that the latter was responsible. The court charged the jury that the fall of the brick spoke negligence on the part of the person who was responsible for its fall. The trial resulted in a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant applied for and was allowed a rule to show cause why this verdict should not [692]*692be set aside, all exceptions at the trial by the defendant being reserved.

The only ground for making the rule absolute which has-been argued before us is that the trial judge erroneously-instructed the jury that there was a presumption from the mere happening of the accident that it was the result of negligence on the part of the defendant’s employe that caused the brick to fall. The instruction of the court to the jiiry upon this matter was excepted to at the close of the charge-by counsel for the defendant. That exception being reserved,, the proper court in which to test the validity of this instruction is a court of review on appeal from the judgment entered in the case. Eor this reason we conclude that the rule-to show cause should be discharged.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

151 A. 379, 8 N.J. Misc. 691, 1930 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 103, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barbero-v-pellegrino-nj-1930.