Panza v. Bickford's Inc. of N.J.

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Panza v. Bickford's Inc. of N.J.

28 A.2d 188, 129 N.J.L. 50, 1942 N.J. LEXIS 266

DecidedSeptember 18, 1942

StatusPublished

This text of 28 A.2d 188 (Panza v. Bickford's Inc. of N.J.) 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

Panza v. Bickford's Inc. of N.J., 28 A.2d 188, 129 N.J.L. 50, 1942 N.J. LEXIS 266 (N.J. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Bodine, J.

The plaintiff purchased a piece of pie in defendant’s restaurant. He suffered injuries for which he recovered damages, because of the presence of a metal slug in the part of the pie eaten.

The proofs tend to show that the defendant baked the pies used in its restaurants. At all events, they had a headquarters for that purpose, and no effort was made to show that the pie served was the product of another, which conceivably might have created a different situation.

The court sent the case to the jury to determine whether the defendant exercised that degree of care, in the preparation and furnishing of the food in question, as should have been exercised by a reasonable and prudent person under like circumstances. DeGroat v. Ward Baking Co., 102 N. J. L. 188; Rickner v. Ritz Restaurant Co., 13 N. J. Mis. R. 818. The presence of a foreign substance in the pie justified an inference of negligence in its preparation. Corin v. S. S. Kresge Co., 110 N. J. L. 378; Jones v. Mount Holly Water Co., 87 Id. 106.

*51 There was no error in the submission of the case to the jury.

The judgment is affirmed.

For affirmance —The Chancellor, Parker, Bodine, Donges, Heher, Preskie, Dear, Wells, Rafferty, Hague, JJ. 10.

For reversal—The Chief Justice, Porter, Colie, Thompson, JJ. 4.

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

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Bodine, J.

The plaintiff purchased a piece of pie in defendant’s restaurant. He suffered injuries for which he recovered damages, because of the presence of a metal slug in the part of the pie eaten.

The proofs tend to show that the defendant baked the pies used in its restaurants. At all events, they had a headquarters for that purpose, and no effort was made to show that the pie served was the product of another, which conceivably might have created a different situation.

The court sent the case to the jury to determine whether the defendant exercised that degree of care, in the preparation and furnishing of the food in question, as should have been exercised by a reasonable and prudent person under like circumstances. DeGroat v. Ward Baking Co., 102 N. J. L. 188; Rickner v. Ritz Restaurant Co., 13 N. J. Mis. R. 818. The presence of a foreign substance in the pie justified an inference of negligence in its preparation. Corin v. S. S. Kresge Co., 110 N. J. L. 378; Jones v. Mount Holly Water Co., 87 Id. 106.

*51 There was no error in the submission of the case to the jury.

The judgment is affirmed.

For affirmance —The Chancellor, Parker, Bodine, Donges, Heher, Preskie, Dear, Wells, Rafferty, Hague, JJ. 10.

For reversal—The Chief Justice, Porter, Colie, Thompson, JJ. 4.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 A.2d 188, 129 N.J.L. 50, 1942 N.J. LEXIS 266, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/panza-v-bickfords-inc-of-nj-nj-1942.