Tissot v. Flashner Realty Company

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Tissot v. Flashner Realty Company

64 A.2d 435, 1 N.J. 529, 1949 N.J. LEXIS 348

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedMarch 14, 1949

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 64 A.2d 435 (Tissot v. Flashner Realty Company) 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

Tissot v. Flashner Realty Company, 64 A.2d 435, 1 N.J. 529, 1949 N.J. LEXIS 348 (N.J. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from' a judgment of non-suit, entered in the former Essex County Circuit Court, in a suit in *530 which the appellant sought damages ensuing from the death of Anna Keleman as the result of her falling down a stairway while a guest of a tenant on premises owned and controlled by defendant.

On the day of the accident Mrs. Keleman had been visiting a friend who lived on the third floor of the premises. She was found injured on the first, floor landing. There were no eye witnesses to the accident itself.

A Mr. Bappista, who lived on the second floor, was asleep at the time. He was awakened by a loud noise. He testified “That noise is go on the second floor”, he heard the noise “from the second floor to the first floor”, tie went out and saw the woman lying on the first floor landing.

Several days later decedent’s son-in-law had pictures taken of the stairway leading to the second floor which show two of the steps near the top in a bad state of disrepair, with the treads defective.

There is a complete absence of testimony as to where Mrs. Keleman fell or what caused her to fall. Assuming there was sufficient proof of negligence on the part of defendant as to the maintenance of the stairway it was still incumbent on the plaintiff to show by evidence, or inferences which could be legitimately drawn therefrom, that the particular negligence complained of was the proximate cause of decedent’s fall. Smith v. Public Service, 78 N. J. L. 478 (E. & A. 1909); Ball v. Atlantic City Ambassador Hotel Corp., 57 Atl. Rep. 2nd 362 (E. & A. 1948), not as yet officially reported. All the evidence shows is that an accident occurred. It is fundamental this is not sufficient.

The non-suit was proper. The judgment is 'affirmed.

For affirmance: Chief Justice Vanderbilt and Justices Case, Heher, Wacheneeld, Burling and Ackerson—6.

For reversal: None.

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

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from' a judgment of non-suit, entered in the former Essex County Circuit Court, in a suit in *530 which the appellant sought damages ensuing from the death of Anna Keleman as the result of her falling down a stairway while a guest of a tenant on premises owned and controlled by defendant.

On the day of the accident Mrs. Keleman had been visiting a friend who lived on the third floor of the premises. She was found injured on the first, floor landing. There were no eye witnesses to the accident itself.

A Mr. Bappista, who lived on the second floor, was asleep at the time. He was awakened by a loud noise. He testified “That noise is go on the second floor”, he heard the noise “from the second floor to the first floor”, tie went out and saw the woman lying on the first floor landing.

Several days later decedent’s son-in-law had pictures taken of the stairway leading to the second floor which show two of the steps near the top in a bad state of disrepair, with the treads defective.

There is a complete absence of testimony as to where Mrs. Keleman fell or what caused her to fall. Assuming there was sufficient proof of negligence on the part of defendant as to the maintenance of the stairway it was still incumbent on the plaintiff to show by evidence, or inferences which could be legitimately drawn therefrom, that the particular negligence complained of was the proximate cause of decedent’s fall. Smith v. Public Service, 78 N. J. L. 478 (E. & A. 1909); Ball v. Atlantic City Ambassador Hotel Corp., 57 Atl. Rep. 2nd 362 (E. & A. 1948), not as yet officially reported. All the evidence shows is that an accident occurred. It is fundamental this is not sufficient.

The non-suit was proper. The judgment is 'affirmed.

For affirmance: Chief Justice Vanderbilt and Justices Case, Heher, Wacheneeld, Burling and Ackerson—6.

For reversal: None.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

64 A.2d 435, 1 N.J. 529, 1949 N.J. LEXIS 348, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tissot-v-flashner-realty-company-nj-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack