William J. Kenney v. Anthony Marhan and Agnes Marhan

Third Circuit

William J. Kenney v. Anthony Marhan and Agnes Marhan

361 F.2d 865, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 5939

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedJune 3, 1966

Docket15541

StatusPublished

This text of 361 F.2d 865 (William J. Kenney v. Anthony Marhan and Agnes Marhan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

William J. Kenney v. Anthony Marhan and Agnes Marhan, 361 F.2d 865, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 5939 (3d Cir. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

On July 14, 1963, the plaintiff moved into a one-family dwelling in Manasquan, New Jersey which he had leased for a two-week period from the defendants. Three days later, on July 17, 1963, he slipped and fell while walking in the kitchen in his stockinged feet and was seriously injured. He sued the defendants in the District Court alleging that the accident was the result of the negligent heavy waxing of the kitchen floor by the defendants prior to his entering into possession of the leased premises. At the conclusion of the plaintiff’s case, the District Court granted the defendants’ motion for a directed verdict which was premised on the grounds that the plaintiff’s testimony had failed to establish any breach of duty imposed by law on the defendants inasmuch as the alleged defective condition was not latent or concealed. In granting the motion for a directed verdict the District Court in an oral opinion pointed out that the plaintiff was fully aware of the “wax gloss on the floors and slippery nature thereof” when he entered into possession of the premises and further noted that the defendants had not in their lease “retained control over any part of the premises”, nor had they asserted any control after the plaintiff came into possession.

On review of the record and consideration of the briefs and oral argument, we are of the opinion that the District Court did not err. LaFreda v. Woodward, 125 N.J.L. 489, 492-493, 15 A.2d 798, 800, 130 A.L.R. 1269 (1940); Folley v. United Building & Loan Ass’n of Hackensack, 117 N.J.L. 54, 57-58, 186 A. 591, 593 (Sup.Ct.1936).

For the reasons stated the Judgment entered by the District Court in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiff will be affirmed.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

On July 14, 1963, the plaintiff moved into a one-family dwelling in Manasquan, New Jersey which he had leased for a two-week period from the defendants. Three days later, on July 17, 1963, he slipped and fell while walking in the kitchen in his stockinged feet and was seriously injured. He sued the defendants in the District Court alleging that the accident was the result of the negligent heavy waxing of the kitchen floor by the defendants prior to his entering into possession of the leased premises. At the conclusion of the plaintiff’s case, the District Court granted the defendants’ motion for a directed verdict which was premised on the grounds that the plaintiff’s testimony had failed to establish any breach of duty imposed by law on the defendants inasmuch as the alleged defective condition was not latent or concealed. In granting the motion for a directed verdict the District Court in an oral opinion pointed out that the plaintiff was fully aware of the “wax gloss on the floors and slippery nature thereof” when he entered into possession of the premises and further noted that the defendants had not in their lease “retained control over any part of the premises”, nor had they asserted any control after the plaintiff came into possession.

On review of the record and consideration of the briefs and oral argument, we are of the opinion that the District Court did not err. LaFreda v. Woodward, 125 N.J.L. 489, 492-493, 15 A.2d 798, 800, 130 A.L.R. 1269 (1940); Folley v. United Building & Loan Ass’n of Hackensack, 117 N.J.L. 54, 57-58, 186 A. 591, 593 (Sup.Ct.1936).

For the reasons stated the Judgment entered by the District Court in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiff will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

361 F.2d 865, 1966 U.S. App. LEXIS 5939, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/william-j-kenney-v-anthony-marhan-and-agnes-marhan-ca3-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack