Case ID: nj_59/html/0365-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Pee Cueiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

STEVEN E. SABLOFF, AN INFANT BY HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM, HERBERT SABLOFF, AND HERBERT SABLOFF, INDIVIDUALLY, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. YAMAHA MOTOR CO., LTD. AND YAMAHA INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, A CORPORATION, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS, AND HARLEY-DAVIDSON OF ESSEX, A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION, DEFENDANTS-CROSS-APPELLANTS.
    Argued October 27, 1971
    Decided November 8, 1971.
    
      Mr. Daniel K. VanDorn argued the cause for appellants, Yamaha (Messrs. Gleeson, Hansen and Vantages, attorneys).
    
      
      Mr. Guy H. Hashins, argued the cause for cross-appellants, Harley-Davidson (Mr. Peter A. Piro, on the brief; Messrs. Hashins, Bobottom and Hach, attorneys).
    Mr., Leonard J. Felzenberg argued the cause for respondents (Messrs. Boshein, Kronisch and Felzenberg, attorneys) .
   Pee Cueiam.

The judgment of the Appellate Division is affirmed for the reasons given in its opinion reported at 113 N. J. Super. 279.

We add that whenever the facts permit an inference that the harmful event ensued from some defect (whether identifiable or not) in the product, the issue of liability is for the jury, and the plaintiff is not necessarily confined to the explanation his expert may advance.

For affirmance—Chief Justice Weinteaub and Justices Jacobs, Erancis, Peoctoe, Hall, Schettino and Mountain—7.

For reversal—None.