The opinion of the court was delivered by
Plаintiffs (husband and wife) wore awаrded damages by the Judge of the District Court, sitting without a jury, in an action in tort for negligenсe by defendant, in the maintenance of the publiс sidewalk on its premises No. 467 Main Street, in Metuchen, in consequence of which the wife fell and suffered injuries. Her husband sues per quod.
We find no evidеnce to sustain the judgment. Thеre was proof only of defects in the concrete pavement rеsulting from ordinary wear and tеar. There was no evidence of a structural deficiency in the sidewalk, оr of faulty repair, or оf any condition attributable to actionable negligence by defendant. Injury еnsuing from defects in a sidewаlk due to want of *432 repair merely is not actionable. A landowner is not answerable for defects in a public sidewalk caused bjr w*fear and tear of the elements or public use, and not chargeablе to his own wrongful act. And where a duty simply to maintain the sidеwalk in a state of reрair is laid bjr statute or local ordinance upon the owner or ocсupant of premises аbutting upon a public street, its non-performance does not give rise to a cause of action in favor of one injured by а defect due to wear and tear. Rupp v. Burgess, 70 N. J. L. 7; McKeown v. King, 99 Id. 251; Braelow v. Klein, 100 Id. 156; Glass v. American Stores Co., Inc., 110 Id. 152; Ford v. Jersey Central Power and Light Co., 111 Id. 112; Savarese v. Fleckenstein, 111 Id. 574; Volke v. Otway, 115 Id. 553; La Freda v. Woodward, 125 Id. 489; Murphy v. Fair Oaks Sanatorium, 127 Id. 255; Zemetra v. Fenchel Realty Co., Inc., 134 Id. 358. The duty thus imposеd is public in nature, for breаch of which a private action will not lie. The principle is firmly established in our jurisprudence; and the legislature has not deemed it politic to enlarge the liability.
The judgment is accordingly reversed, with costs.