Court Opinion

ID: 9716027
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 06:23:54.773567+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:54:52.710233
License: Public Domain

Burling, J.
(dissenting). Assuming the duty owing by the defendants to the plaintiff as defined in the majority opinion, the motion of the defendants at the conclusion of the reception of evidence for judgment in their favor upon the ground of contributory negligence should have been granted.
The test of contributory negligence is whether the action of the plaintiff is such as to constitute a failure to use such *284care for Ms safety as the ordinarily prudent man in similar circumstances would use.
When the reception of evidence was concluded the lack of adequate illumination was the sole and remaining allegation of actionable negligence. The plaintiff incurred the risk of danger of the very thing which is the foundation of recovery. The deficiency of operation of the light upon the second floor was called to the attention of the defendant Najaxian in his apartment by the daughter of the plaintiff in her mother’s presence. Upon conclusion of the mission, she proceeded to descend from the third floor to the second floor. The plaintiff had the opportunity and duty to ascertain whether replacement of the light had been made before initiating her descent especially since she was accompanied to the stairs at the third floor by the defendant Najarian. Aware of the continued deficiency in operation of the light upon the second floor and in the face of darkness at this point she continued to descend. The plaintiff clearly disregarded the obvious dangerous condition. Cf. Nauman v. Central & Lafayette Realty Co., Inc., 137 N. J. L. 428, 430 (Sup. Ct. 1948), affirmed per curiam in 1 N. J. 124 (1948).
Even though the stair well was the only means of exit there was no immediate necessity for her to proceed with the premises in that condition. Cf. Saunders v. Smith Realty Co., 84 N. J. L. 276, 280 (E. & A. 1913). Darkness, the alleged result of breach of duty of the defendants constituted the sole allegation of proximate cause of injury. By heedlessly proceeding in the face of danger this clear case of fault invited the injurious consequence. Volenti non fit injuria.
Where in the trial of an action there are no disputed facts or disputed inferences to be drawn from the undisputed facts, it devolves upon the court to declare the judgment which the law imposes. Where, as here, the negligence of the plaintiff clearly and conclusively appears and proximately contributed to the plaintiff’s injury there is no warrant for the submission of that question to the jury for its determination and judgment for the defendant should be entered.
*285Eor the reasons expressed herein I would affirm the judgment of the Superior Court, Appellate Division.
Chief Justice Vanderbilt and Justice Oliphant authorize me to state that they concur in the views expressed herein.
For reversal — Justices Heher, Wachenpeld, Jacobs and Brennan- — 4.
For affirmance — Chief Justice Vanderbilt, and Justices Oliphant and Burling — 3.