Carr v. Hagerich

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Carr v. Hagerich

13 A.2d 494, 125 N.J.L. 2, 1940 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 131

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedMay 27, 1940

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 13 A.2d 494 (Carr v. Hagerich) 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

Carr v. Hagerich, 13 A.2d 494, 125 N.J.L. 2, 1940 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 131 (N.J. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

Bodine, J.

The plaintiffs, husband and wife, recovered damages for injuries suffered on defendant’s premises, a restaurant and tavern, in Morris Plains on the evening of April 17th, 1938Í They had gone to the premises to purchase *3 cocktails. For some reason, they did not use the front entrance but went around to the side of the building. At this place was a service entrance with a screen door upon which was printed the words “Keep Out.” Beyond was a doorway leading to the cocktail bar. The service entrance was not lighted; the other entrance was. The plaintiff husband opened the service door, in spite of the sign and in spite of the fact that the entry was dark, permitting his wife to enter. She took two steps forward and fell down the cellar steps and he followed.

There was error in the failure of the court to grant a non-suit or direct a verdict for the defendant. The liability of the owner or occupier of land to his. invitees is circumscribed by his invitation. Ryerson v. Bathgate, 67 N. J. L. 337; Guse v. Martin, 96 Id. 262; Carey v. Gray, 98 Id. 217; Gavin v. O'Connor, 99 Id. 162; Liveright v. Max Lifsitz Furniture Co., 117 Id. 243; Wright v. General Ceramics Co., 120 Id. 33.

There was no implied invitation to enter this tavern by a dark service entrance clearly marked with the words “Keep Out.” Hence, there was no duty owing to the plaintiffs save to refrain from causing willful injury.

The judgment is reversed.

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

Bodine, J.

The plaintiffs, husband and wife, recovered damages for injuries suffered on defendant’s premises, a restaurant and tavern, in Morris Plains on the evening of April 17th, 1938Í They had gone to the premises to purchase *3 cocktails. For some reason, they did not use the front entrance but went around to the side of the building. At this place was a service entrance with a screen door upon which was printed the words “Keep Out.” Beyond was a doorway leading to the cocktail bar. The service entrance was not lighted; the other entrance was. The plaintiff husband opened the service door, in spite of the sign and in spite of the fact that the entry was dark, permitting his wife to enter. She took two steps forward and fell down the cellar steps and he followed.

There was error in the failure of the court to grant a non-suit or direct a verdict for the defendant. The liability of the owner or occupier of land to his. invitees is circumscribed by his invitation. Ryerson v. Bathgate, 67 N. J. L. 337; Guse v. Martin, 96 Id. 262; Carey v. Gray, 98 Id. 217; Gavin v. O'Connor, 99 Id. 162; Liveright v. Max Lifsitz Furniture Co., 117 Id. 243; Wright v. General Ceramics Co., 120 Id. 33.

There was no implied invitation to enter this tavern by a dark service entrance clearly marked with the words “Keep Out.” Hence, there was no duty owing to the plaintiffs save to refrain from causing willful injury.

The judgment is reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 A.2d 494, 125 N.J.L. 2, 1940 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 131, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carr-v-hagerich-nj-1940.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack