Case ID: nj_42/html/0352-01.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

WILLIAM REITER, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. MAX MARX COLOR & CHEMICAL CO., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    Argued May 4, 1964
    Decided May 18, 1964.
    
      
      Mr. H. Curtis Meanor argued the cause for defendant-appellant (Messrs. Lamb, Blalce, Hutchinson £ Dunne, attorneys).
    
      Mr. Francis Sorin argued the cause for plaintiff-respondent.
   The opinion of the court was delivered

Pee Cueiam.

We affirm the judgment of the Appellate Division substantially for the reasons given by it. 82 N. J. Super. 334 (App. Div. 1964). To avoid any further misapprehension, we state, with respect to the issue of invitation, that when an owner of premises engages a contractor to perform certain work or repairs thereon, under the law be impliedly invites the employees of the contractor to use such part or parts of the premises as are reasonably necessary for the doing of the work or the making of the repairs.

For affirmance — Chief Justice Weintkaub, and Justices Jacobs, Eeancis, Peoctoe, Hall, Schettino and HaueMA® — 7.

For reversal — None.