Ferguson v. Mikulsky

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Ferguson v. Mikulsky

160 A. 89, 10 N.J. Misc. 599, 1932 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 160

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedApril 26, 1932

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 160 A. 89 (Ferguson v. Mikulsky) 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

Ferguson v. Mikulsky, 160 A. 89, 10 N.J. Misc. 599, 1932 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 160 (N.J. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Ctjeiam.

Plaintiff below slipped on an icy pavement in front of defendant’s garage and received injuries, brought suit against the owner, and recovered a judgment in the Second District Court of Hudson county. The defendant appeals and alleges that there was error in the refusal to nonsuit, refusal to direct a verdict in favor of the defendant, refusal to charge certain requests and in the charge itself.

[600]*600We think either the nonsuit or direction of a verdict for the defendant should have been granted. The plaintiff's testimony established that the defendant's son on January 26th, 1929, made a pathway through snow and slush which had accumulated on the pavement fronting the defendant’s premises. At seven o'clock in the evening the plaintiff slipped in this pathway, fell and was injured. The plaintiff testified that the son was “just pushing it along like that and let the snow go whichever way it wanted to."

This was the proof on which negligence was predicated and we think it was insufficient. The case is precisely like and is controlled by Arning v. Drudinq, 96 N. J. L. 47; 114 Atl. Rep. 158.

Our conclusion on this fundamental phase of the question makes it unnecessary to consider the remaining grounds of appeal.

The judgment is reversed.

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

Pee Ctjeiam.

Plaintiff below slipped on an icy pavement in front of defendant’s garage and received injuries, brought suit against the owner, and recovered a judgment in the Second District Court of Hudson county. The defendant appeals and alleges that there was error in the refusal to nonsuit, refusal to direct a verdict in favor of the defendant, refusal to charge certain requests and in the charge itself.

[600]*600We think either the nonsuit or direction of a verdict for the defendant should have been granted. The plaintiff's testimony established that the defendant's son on January 26th, 1929, made a pathway through snow and slush which had accumulated on the pavement fronting the defendant’s premises. At seven o'clock in the evening the plaintiff slipped in this pathway, fell and was injured. The plaintiff testified that the son was “just pushing it along like that and let the snow go whichever way it wanted to."

This was the proof on which negligence was predicated and we think it was insufficient. The case is precisely like and is controlled by Arning v. Drudinq, 96 N. J. L. 47; 114 Atl. Rep. 158.

Our conclusion on this fundamental phase of the question makes it unnecessary to consider the remaining grounds of appeal.

The judgment is reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

160 A. 89, 10 N.J. Misc. 599, 1932 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 160, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ferguson-v-mikulsky-nj-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack