Case Name: EUGENE CALLAHAN, Jr., AN INFANT, BY HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM, MARY CALLAHAN, AND MARY CALLAHAN AND EUGENE CALLAHAN, HER HUSBAND, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. DEARBORN DEVELOPMENTS, INC., A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT
Court: Supreme Court of New Jersey
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1960-03-21
Citations: 32 N.J. 27
Docket Number: 
Parties: EUGENE CALLAHAN, Jr., AN INFANT, BY HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM, MARY CALLAHAN, AND MARY CALLAHAN AND EUGENE CALLAHAN, HER HUSBAND, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. DEARBORN DEVELOPMENTS, INC., A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Reports
Volume: 32
Pages: 27–28

Head Matter:
EUGENE CALLAHAN, Jr., AN INFANT, BY HIS GUARDIAN AD LITEM, MARY CALLAHAN, AND MARY CALLAHAN AND EUGENE CALLAHAN, HER HUSBAND, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. DEARBORN DEVELOPMENTS, INC., A NEW JERSEY CORPORATION, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
Argued March 7, 1960
Decided March 21, 1960.
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).

Opinion:
Pee Cueiam.
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 Weinteaub, and Justices Bueldstg, Jacobs, Peaüstcis, Peoctoe, Hall and Schet-TI3STO—-7.
For reversal—Hone.