From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Callahan v. Dearborn Developments, Inc.

Supreme Court of New Jersey
Mar 21, 1960
158 A.2d 830 (N.J. 1960)

Opinion

Argued March 7, 1960 —

Decided March 21, 1960.

Appeal from Superior Court, Appellate Division.

Mr. John W. Leyden, Jr., argued the cause for plaintiffs-appellants ( Messrs. Leyden Monaghan, attorneys).

Mr. George A. Brown argued the cause for defendant-respondent ( Messrs. Morrison, Lloyd Griggs, attorneys).


We have examined the record and briefs in this matter and, after considering the proof in the most favorable light to the plaintiffs, have concluded that the judgment should be affirmed substantially for the reasons expressed in the majority opinion of the Appellate Division. We limit the affirmance, however, to a determination that the evidence submitted failed to make out a case within conditions (a) and (b) of Section 339 of the Restatement, Torts, which is cited in that opinion.

For affirmance — Chief Justice WEINTRAUB, and Justices BURLING, JACOBS, FRANCIS, PROCTOR, HALL and SCHETTINO — 7.

For reversal — None.


Summaries of

Callahan v. Dearborn Developments, Inc.

Supreme Court of New Jersey
Mar 21, 1960
158 A.2d 830 (N.J. 1960)
Case details for

Callahan v. Dearborn Developments, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:EUGENE CALLAHAN, JR., AN INFANT, BY HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM, MARY CALLAHAN…

Court:Supreme Court of New Jersey

Date published: Mar 21, 1960

Citations

158 A.2d 830 (N.J. 1960)
158 A.2d 830

Citing Cases

Scheck v. Houdaille Const. Materials, Inc.

See Simmel v. N.J. Coop. Co., supra; Ostroski v. Mt. Prospect Shoprite, Inc., supra.; Ramundo v. Turi, 92…

Long v. Sutherland-Backer Co.

To charge defendant with the duty of foreseeing such conduct, to foresee that four 11-year-old boys would…