Pisano v. B. M. & J. F. Shanley Co.

48 A. 618, 66 N.J.L. 1, 37 Vroom 1, 1901 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 149
CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey
DecidedFebruary 25, 1901
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 48 A. 618 (Pisano v. B. M. & J. F. Shanley 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
Pisano v. B. M. & J. F. Shanley Co., 48 A. 618, 66 N.J.L. 1, 37 Vroom 1, 1901 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 149 (N.J. 1901).

Opinion

[3]*3The opinion, of the court was delivered by

Depue, Chief Justice.

This was an action of tort to recover damages under the act entitled “An act to provide fox the recovery of damages in cases where the death of' a person is caused by wrongful act, neglect or default.” Gen. Sitó,, p. 1188. The plaintiff avers in his declaration that the deceased left him surviving a widow and a brother, who is the plaintiff in this suit, and that they were his next of kin, whereby an action by force of the statute accrued to the plaintiff as administrator. The declaration also sets out that on the 11th of April, 1899, the deceased was in the employ of the defendant as a stonecutter; that the defendant was engaged in repairing and reconstructing a certain bridge across the Passaic river at the city of Newark, which said bridge contained a draw operated by steam power. It avers that it became necessary, in repairing and constructing said bridge, to do work on a stone pier supporting the bridge and upon which the draw of the said bridge rests. It also avers that persons who were at work on said stone pier were necessarily under the draw of the bridge, and unless they had timely notice or warning of the opening of said draw, were in danger of being crushed against the pier of the said bridge; that the employes who were at work on said stone pier were unable, from the position they were obliged to take in performing their respective duties, to have any knowledge or notice when said draw was about to be opened, and were necessarily dependent upon actual timely notice or warning being given them by the defendant when said draw was about to be opened, so as to give them an opportunity to reach a place of safety. It further avers that it became and was the duty of the defendant to use due and proper care in the selection of its servants, and to use due and proper care to provide and maintain a safe place for its servants to perform their work in, and to use due and proper care that timely warning or notice should be given to its servants employed upon, said nier. of the opening of said draw; yet said defendant, not regarding its duty, &c., did not use due and proper care in the selection of its servants, and did not use due and proper [4]*4care to provide and maintain a safe place for its servants to perform their work in, and did not use due and proper care that timely warning or notice should be given to its servants •employed upon said pier of the opening of said draw, but carelessly, negligently and improperly suffered and permitted said draw of said bridge to be opened without first having given a timely warning or notice to the said deceased, who was then and there working on said pier in the lawful discharge of his duties, so that the deceased was then and there crushed between the said pier and said bridge, and then and there sustained mortal injuries, of which said mortal injuries he then and there instantly died.

To this declaration the defendant pleaded, first, the general issue, and secondly, that the grievances in said declaration mentioned were committed jointly by the said defendant and the Pennsylvania Railroad Company, a corporation of the State of Pennsylvania, the lessee of the United New Jersey Railroad and Canal Company, a corporation of this state, and after the committing of the said alleged grievances in said declaration mentioned, and before the commencement of this suit, &c., one Gt. Branchi, being the administrator of all and singular the goods, chattels and credits of the said Lorenzo Pisano, duly appointed by the Surrogate’s Court of the county of New York, in the State of New York (of which county the said Lorenzo Pisano was a resident at the time of his death), by his deed or writing of release, sealed with his seal, &c., did remise, release and forever quit-claim and discharge unto the said Pennsylvania Railroad Company and its lessor, the United New Jersey Railroad and Canal Company, &c., all claims and demands which the said G-. Branchi, as administrator as aforesaid, had or could or might have against the said Pennsylvania Railroad Company and its lessor, the United New Jersey Railroad and Canal Company, or either of them, or their or either of their successors, for or by reason of any matter, cause or thing whatsoever, and more especially by reason of the personal injuries sustained by the said Lorenzo Pisano while at work upon the bridge of said company, whereby he lost his life, &c.

[5]*5To this plea the plaintiff filed several replications, of which at this time the following only are material to this discussion: (1) that the plaintiff ought not to be debarred from having- and maintaining his aforesaid action thereof against said defendant, because he saith that the said grievances in the said declaration mentioned were not committed jointly by the defendant and the Pennsylvania Eailroad Company, &c.; (3) that the said Pisano, deceased, was a resident of and domiciled in the State of Yew Jersey, and not in the State of Yew York; that the said Pennsylvania Eailroad Company was from thence hitherto a resident of and domiciled in the State of Pennsylvania, and not in the State of Yew York, and the said cause of action mentioned in the said declaration was then and there and has always been outside of the State of Yew York, to wit, in the county of Essex, &c.; (4) that the said defendant, fraudulently contriving with the Pennsylvania Eailroad Company, its servants and the said G. Branchi, and divers other persons unknown to the plaintiff, to deprive the widow of said Lorenzo Pisano and said plaintiff, the next of kin, &c., of all the rights and benefits accruing to them by reason of the grievances mentioned in the plaintiff’s declaration, then and there confederated together to procure, without the knowledge or consent of said plaintiff and said widow, apd secretly procured said G. Branchi, who was of no financial responsibility, to be appointed administrator of the deceased, and that after he had become such administrator, he should then and there release all action and right of action vested in the personal representative of said deceased for a purely nominal and grossly inadequate consideration, and that said Branchi, carrying out the design of the said conspiracy, fraudulently and secretly, without-the knowledge or consent of said plaintiff or said widow, by false representations to said Surrogate’s Court of the county of Yew York, that he was a proper person to be administrator, and that he had consent and authority of said widow and said plaintiff to become said administrator and to act as such, &c., &c.; with the further averment that the said Branchi fraudulently and for a purely [6]*6nominal and grossly inadequate consideration, by and through the procurement of the said defendant and said Pennsylvania Railroad Company, then and there sealed and delivered to the said Pennsylvania Railroad Company the said release in said plea secondly above mentioned; wherefore, &c.

To the first, third and fourth of these replications the defendant demurred.

The first replication to the- second plea is good. The plea avers that the grievances whereof the plaintiff complained were committed jointly by the defendant and the Pennsylvania Railroad Company, the lessee of the United New Jersey Railroad and Canal Company. It sets out a release to the Pennsylvania Railroad Company and its lessor, the United New Jersey Railroad and Canal Company. The allegation in the plea is that the defendant and the'Pennsylvania Railroad Company were joint tort-feasors.

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

Related

Kern v. Kogan
226 A.2d 186 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1967)
Wasserman v. Tannenbaum
93 A.2d 812 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1952)
Prudential Insurance Co. v. Laval
23 A.2d 908 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1942)
In Re Fischer
180 A. 633 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1935)
Riley v. Lukens Dredging & Contracting Corp.
4 F. Supp. 144 (D. Maryland, 1933)
Willgues v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co.
298 S.W. 817 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1927)
Public Service Electric Co. v. Post
257 F. 933 (Third Circuit, 1919)
American Car & Foundry Co. v. Anderson
211 F. 301 (Eighth Circuit, 1914)
Manns v. A. E. Sanford Co.
81 A. 491 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1911)
Southern Railway Co. v. Hawkins
35 App. D.C. 313 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1910)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
48 A. 618, 66 N.J.L. 1, 37 Vroom 1, 1901 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 149, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pisano-v-b-m-j-f-shanley-co-nj-1901.