Opinion
Submitted May 7, 1940 —
Decided May 27, 1940.
1. The proprietor of a business office is not an insurer of the safety of visitors, but is only liable for known defects, or defects which have existed for so long a time that by the exercise of reasonable care could have been discovered and remedied.
2. Plaintiff visited defendant's premises to pick up some type, and there being no one in the outer office, he attempted to open a door with a glass panel leading to the back office where there was a light and a workman employed, and claimed a pane of glass came down cutting his right hand. There was no proof of the condition of the door before or after the occurrence, except that the mouldings were in firm condition and that fragments of glass were scattered in the inner office. Held, that plaintiff failed to establish any want of care on defendant's part, and a nonsuit should have been entered.
On appeal from the District Court of the City of Orange.
Before Justices TRENCHARD, BODINE and PORTER.
For the defendant-appellant, John W. Taylor.
For the plaintiff-respondent, William A. Davenport and Francis J. Tansey.
The defendant appeals from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff. On the evening of June 3d 1938, the plaintiff, a typesetter and distributor, visited the defendant's premises in Newark in order to pick up some type. There being no one in the outer office, he started to open a door with a glass panel leading to the back office where there was a light and a workman employed. The plaintiff testified, "I went to open the door with my right hand and a pane of glass came down." Thus his right hand was cut.
Needless to say the defendant's proofs rejected by the learned trial judge as perjured indicated that the plaintiff, in a boisterous and abusive mood, had put his fist through the door shattering the glass in to the inner office.
The proprietor of a business office is not an insurer of the safety of visitors, but is only liable for known defects, or defects which have existed for so long a time that by the exercise of reasonable care could have been discovered and remedied. Schnatterer v. Bamberger Co., 81 N.J.L. 558; Taylor v. Roth Co., 102 Id. 702; Bader v. Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Co., 112 Id. 241.
There was no proof as to the condition of the door before or after the occurrence, except to the effect that the mouldings holding the glass were in firm condition and that the fragments of broken glass were scattered in the inner office. Obviously, the plaintiff failed to establish any want of care upon the defendant's part and a nonsuit should have been entered.
Judgment is reversed, with costs to abide the event.