Rom v. Huber
Supreme Court of New Jersey
On appeal from the Supreme Court, whose opinion is reported in 93 N. J. L. 360.
1Opinion of the Court
Pee Curiam.
The only circumstance' that requires remarle from us is the plaintiff’s contention that the defendant was liable for the negligence of his servant, and that in such a ease the rule of Schnatterer v. Bamberger is not applicable. The plaintiff’s proposition is legally correct. The answer is that given in substance by the trial judge. There was no evidence that the soap on the floor—if, indeed, there was soap.—was due to the negligence of any servant of the defendant.' The evidence was that soap gets on the floor of the scrub room where patrons of the bath are rubbed by the attendants…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Johnson v. Wagner Provision Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1943
- Bader v. Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1934
- Hiatt v. . RitterSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1943
- Sutton v. Lerner Stores Corp.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1932
- Brothers v. Grays Harbor Building Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1929
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.