51 N.J.L. 342 | N.J. | 1889
The plaintiff in error was employed by the defendant as a laborer to assist in unloading from a vessel
We think that the evidence established necessity for a ladder in the prosecution of the defendant’s work, and the possession and control of the ladder referred to by the defendant, in a position where it could be and was used by the defendant’s workmen, and hence made prima facie proof that the ladder was provided for the use of its workmen by the defendant. That the ladder was defective and unsafe was not controverted. The non-suit was not granted upon the ground of contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff, but such negligence was urged upon the argument here. The proofs of the plaintiff’s negligence are so debatable that they should be submitted to a jury. The judgment below should be reversed, that a venire de novo may be awarded.
For affirmance — Hone.
For reversal — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Hepue, Dixon, Knapp, Magie, Reed, Scudder, Yan Syckel, Brown, Clement, Cole, Smith, Whitaker. 14.