Source: https://www.kirschenbaumesq.com/article/abel-holding-company-inc-plaintiff-respondent-v-american-district-telegraph-company-and-grinnell-company-defendants-and-new-jersey-bell-telephone-company-defendant-appellant-abel-holding-company-inc-plaintiff-appellant-v-american-district-te
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 06:19:16+00:00

Document:
SUBSEQUENT HISTORY:Reargued January 10, 1977.
by plaintiff's contract with defendant installer.
apply to defendant telephone company.
attorneys; Mr. Lewis B. April, of counsel and on the brief; Ms. Mary M.
Mr. Franklin Sachs argued the cause for Abel Holding Co., Inc. (Messrs.
Podvey & Sachs, attorneys; Mr. Henry J. Catenacci on the brief).
not participate in the appeal.
JUDGES: Bischoff, Morgan and Rizzi.
damaged an amusement center known as "Steel Pier" in Atlantic City.
Bell Telephone Company (Bell), and Grinnell Company, Inc. (Grinnell).
[**113] Following extensive discovery, a pretrial conference was held.
appeal, pursuant to leave granted, from portions of that order.
present purposes to note the following facts.
defect in the alarm system and in the telephone line connections.
We consider, first, the issues raised by plaintiff's appeal.
250. (This clause is set out in full in the reported opinion, 138 N.J.
essentially for the reasons expressed in the reported opinion at 145 to 154.
defendants Bell and ADT, and appeals from the denial of both motions.
judge in both the reported opinion and the unreported letter opinion.
We turn to a consideration [***4] of the issues raised by Bell's appeal.
contained therein, is binding alike on the customer and third parties.
Board v. New Jersey Bell Telephone Co., 126 N.J. Super. 417, 421-22 (App.
216 F. 2d 26 (2 Cir. 1954); Bird v. Chesapeake and Potomac Tel. Co., 185 A.
2d 917 (D.C. App. 1962); see also, cases collected in Annotation, 92 A.L.R.
F. Supp. 727 (D. Kan. 1973); Wheeler Stuckey, Inc. v. Southwestern Bell Tel.
customer, and our own research has failed to disclose any.
Corp., 58 N.J. 366, 368 (1971); Horelick v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 13 N.J.
or to adopt the reasoning expressed therein.
276 Mass. 478, 177 N.E. 549 (Sup. Jud. Ct. 1931); Mortenson v. New York Tel.
(Sup. Ct. 1942); De Foe v. Potomac Electric Power Co., 123 A. 2d 920 (D.C.
noncustomer such as plaintiff (Abel) is barred from maintaining an action.
all within the zone of hazard created by its own activity. Miller v.
Muscarelle, 67 N.J. Super. 305, 327 (App. Div. 1961).
because of reliance of the other or the third person upon the undertaking.
In Gold Mills, Inc. v. Orbit Processing Corp., 121 N.J. Super. 370 (Law Div.
failure of such Department or organization.
similar organizations as they may be known in various political districts.
We agree with this construction of the clause.
liability clause in the contract between plaintiff and ADT is affirmed.
The order enterd below, on all issues raised by this appeal, is affirmed.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.