Case Name: ALBERT HARTMAN, DEFENDANT IN ERROR, v. McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1912-03-04
Citations: 82 N.J.L. 734
Docket Number: 
Parties: ALBERT HARTMAN, DEFENDANT IN ERROR, v. McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 82
Pages: 734–735

Head Matter:
ALBERT HARTMAN, DEFENDANT IN ERROR, v. McCLINTIC-MARSHALL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR.
Submitted December 11, 1911
Decided March 4, 1912.
On error to the Supreme Court, which court affirmed a judgment of the Hudson Circuit Court in favor of the plaintiff below in an action to recover damages for personal injuries. The views of the Supreme Court are expressed in the following memorandum:
“Pee Cubiam.
“While engaged at his work in defendant’s employment, the plaintiff was injured by the breaking of a shackle attached to the end of a boom on a derrick which was then being used for raising heavy iron girders. The shackle broke while lifting a fourteen-ton girder, and injured plaintiff, and the insistence of the plaintiff is that the shackle was too light for the work, in that it was a one and one-quarter inch shackle instead of a one and one-half inch shackle, which prudence and the exercise of reasonable care would require defendant to use.
“There was evidence sufficient to support this claim, and the resulting corollary that it was inadequate for the use to which defendant put it, and this situation furnished a jury question.
“The verdict was for the plaintiff, and a rule to show cause was allowed, reserving only the exception taken to the refusal of the trial court to direct a verdict for defendant, which is the only question which this court can consider on error. Haden v. Bamford Silk Co., 44 Vroom 308; affirmed, 45 Id. 847.
“Since the evidence presented by the plaintiff created an issue of fact for the jury to determine, the refusal of the trial court to direct a verdict was entirely proper.
“The judgment will be affirmed.”
For the plaintiff in error, John A. Bernhard.
For the defendant in error, Alexander Simpson.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The judgment under review herein should be affirmed, for the reasons expressed in the opinion of the Supreme Court.
For affirmance—The Chancellor, Garrison, Swayze, Parker, Bergen, Voorhees, Kaijsch, Bogert, Vredenburgh, Vroom, Congdon, White, Treacy, JJ. 13.
For reversal—None.