Breker v. Lakewood Water Co.

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Breker v. Lakewood Water Co.

174 A. 478, 12 N.J. Misc. 721, 1934 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 26

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedSeptember 28, 1934

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 174 A. 478 (Breker v. Lakewood Water Co.) 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

Breker v. Lakewood Water Co., 174 A. 478, 12 N.J. Misc. 721, 1934 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 26 (N.J. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff sued to recover damages because of the theft of some of her property by persons unknown. It appears that the defendant, through its servants, entered the plaintiff’s premises to remove a water meter. They had authority so to do whenever for any reason the service should be terminated. The house was vacant, the weather was excessively cold, and there was danger of freezing. It seems unnecessary to consider how the entry was made, or whether the subsequent closing of the house was effective. The case went to the jury [722]*722■on the theory that the closing of the house after the removal of the meter had been done in a negligent manner, and that, therefore, the defendant company was liable for the unlawful burglaries committed by parties unknown.

The proofs are satisfying that the closing was as effective as it had previously been. The rule of law is: “Defendant’s negligence is too remote to constitute the proximate cause where an independent illegal act of a third person, which could not reasonably have been foreseen, and without which .such injury would not have been sustained, intervenes.” 45 Corp. Jur. 936. It could not be foreseen that the burglaries would occur by reason of anything the defendant was shown by competent proof to have done or failed to do.

It is unnecessary to consider the other points argued. Suffice it to say that the grounds of appeal are insufficient to present any question for our determination. Loeb v. Cook, 110 N. J. L. 417; 166 Atl. Rep. 134. The learned trial judge should have granted the nonsuit or directed a verdict for the •defendant.

The judgment is reversed.

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

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff sued to recover damages because of the theft of some of her property by persons unknown. It appears that the defendant, through its servants, entered the plaintiff’s premises to remove a water meter. They had authority so to do whenever for any reason the service should be terminated. The house was vacant, the weather was excessively cold, and there was danger of freezing. It seems unnecessary to consider how the entry was made, or whether the subsequent closing of the house was effective. The case went to the jury [722]*722■on the theory that the closing of the house after the removal of the meter had been done in a negligent manner, and that, therefore, the defendant company was liable for the unlawful burglaries committed by parties unknown.

The proofs are satisfying that the closing was as effective as it had previously been. The rule of law is: “Defendant’s negligence is too remote to constitute the proximate cause where an independent illegal act of a third person, which could not reasonably have been foreseen, and without which .such injury would not have been sustained, intervenes.” 45 Corp. Jur. 936. It could not be foreseen that the burglaries would occur by reason of anything the defendant was shown by competent proof to have done or failed to do.

It is unnecessary to consider the other points argued. Suffice it to say that the grounds of appeal are insufficient to present any question for our determination. Loeb v. Cook, 110 N. J. L. 417; 166 Atl. Rep. 134. The learned trial judge should have granted the nonsuit or directed a verdict for the •defendant.

The judgment is reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

174 A. 478, 12 N.J. Misc. 721, 1934 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 26, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/breker-v-lakewood-water-co-nj-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack