Case Name: SUSAN A. SLATER, DEFENDANT IN ERROR, v. NORTH JERSEY STREET RAILWAY COMPANY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR
Court: New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1909-11-15
Citations: 78 N.J.L. 559
Docket Number: 
Parties: SUSAN A. SLATER, DEFENDANT IN ERROR, v. NORTH JERSEY STREET RAILWAY COMPANY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 78
Pages: 559–560

Head Matter:
SUSAN A. SLATER, DEFENDANT IN ERROR, v. NORTH JERSEY STREET RAILWAY COMPANY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR.
Argued June 25, 1909
Decided November 15, 1909.
On error to the Supreme Court, in which court there was a per curiam opinion filed, as follows:
“The only assignment of error argued before us is that which is direded at the refusal of the trial court to order a nonsuit at the close of the plaintiff’s case. The action was brought to recover for personal injuries. The case made by the plaintiff was that as she ivas crossing Pacific avenue at the comer of Communipaw avenue in Jersey City she slipped and fell as she came to the east rail of the defendant company’s west track; that she did not see what she slipped on at the time, but that afterwards she found grease upon her clothing. There is evidence that the defendant company used grease at this point (where there was a curve in their track) to facilitate the movement of their cars.
“It is fair to presume from the testimony that this grease was used as frequently as it was necessary to keep the track lubricated. The evidence in the case raised two questions which were for the jury to decide: First, whether the fall of the plaintiff was caused by the presence of grease upon, or in close proximity to, the defendant company’s track; and second, whether that grease had been put there carelessly by the company or its employes. The court properly declined to take these questions from the jury. The refusal to nonsuit should he affirmed.”
For the plaintiff in error, William B. Edwards.
For the defendant in error, Warren Dixon.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The judgment of the Supreme Court is affirmed, for the reasons given in the opinion filed in that court.
For affirmance — Garrison, Swayze, Reed, Parker, Bergen, Voorhees, Bogert, Vredenburgh, Vroom, Dill, Congdon, JJ. 11.
For reversal — ÍTone.