Source: https://www.kirschenbaumesq.com/article/c-j-ostalkiewicz-et-al-v-guardian-alarm-a-division-of-colberts-security-services-inc
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 12:42:31+00:00

Document:
Appeal from Superior Court, Providence County, Lagueux, J.
issues of breach of contract and negligence.
COUNSEL: James T. McCormick, Vincent T. Santaniello, for Plaintiffs.
Kenneth P. Borden, Higgins, Cavanagh & Cooney, for Defendant.
JUDGES: Fay, C.J., Kelleher, Weisberger, Murray, Shea, JJ.
part and reverse in part. The pertinent facts of the case are as follows.
with Guardian Alarm, a division of Colbert's Security Services, Inc.
charge provided * * * for a period of service of six months or $250."
February 2, 1980, a robbery occurred at plaintiffs' place of business. C.J.
a closet in the office and was not discovered by the robbers.
necessarily in the order raised in the parties' briefs.
jurisdictions. In almost every instance such clauses have been upheld.
American Insurance Cos. v. Burns Electronic Security Services, Inc., 93 Ill.
sensible arrangement, and the plaintiff is bound [**7] by it." 93 Ill. App.
3d at 299, 417 N.E.2d at 132-33.
limitation of liability clause almost identical to that in the case at bar.
service for a specific sum that was "not a premium for theft insurance."
the parties entered into the contract fully aware of its terms.
liability clauses have been upheld.
programmed into the computer, as eventually was found to be the case.
granting a directed verdict against Cynthia on this count.
presented that might be decided in that party's favor by a rational jury.
Manufacturing v. Pinkerton's Inc., 474 A.2d 436 (R.I. 1984).
was adequate to survive a motion for directed verdict on the issue of fraud.
received repeated assurances that the alarm button was, in fact, operative.
the fraud count as it applied to C.J.
motion for new trial in respect to all issues of liability and damages.
resolved that question of fact in favor of C.J.
referring specifically to the holdup button. I do not believe Mr.
otherwise clearly wrong. Gallo v. Arnold, 476 A.2d 118 (R.I. 1984); Puc v.
Leaseway of New England, 121 R.I. 149, 396 A.2d 940 (1979); Morinville v.
Morinville, 116 R.I. 507, 359 A.2d 48 (1976).
his findings in respect to the excessive amount of damages awarded to C.J.
instructions and rendered a verdict on counts 1, 2, and 3 in that amount.
The plaintiffs have attempted to raise other issues in their reply brief.
addition to the issues previously dealt with in this opinion.
guidance [**18] of the next trial justice that we have held in Cambrola v.
also Halpert v. Rosenthal, 107 R.I. 406, 267 A.2d 730 (1970).
the granting of this directed verdict, whether or not it was erroneous.
foregoing counts and for a new trial for C.J. alone on the fraud count.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v.

 v.