Court Opinion

ID: 9857421
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 14:34:01.16274+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:38:03.024293
License: Public Domain

Jacobs and Schettino, JJ.
(dissenting in part). It seems to us that the circumstances outlined here by Justice Pjroctok and in the Appellate Division by Judge Ereund (see 53 N. J. Super. 336, 340 — 342 (1958)) presented jury issues not only as to the landlord’s responsibility because of the negligent failure of the landlord or its agents to light the rear means of egress but also as to the tenant’s responsibility because of the negligent failure of the tenant or its agents to warn the plaintiff, who was lawfully on its premises and was properly using the rear means of egress along with the tenant’s acting foreman and its employee, that there was *320(as the majority acknowledges a jury could readily find) “a structural situation which presented an exceptionally hazardous condition to one who could not observe it.” See Restatement, Torts § 360, comment (a) (1934); Clapp, S. J. A. D., in Snyder v. I. Jay Realty Co., 46 N. J. Super. 323, 328-330 (App. Div. 1957). Accordingly, we would, as did the Appellate Division, award a new trial to the plaintiff against both the landlord and the tenant.
The I. Jay Realty Co.:
For affirmance — Chief Justice Weintraub, and Justices Jacobs, Francis, Proctor, Hall and Sci-iettino — 6.
For reversal — Justice Burling — 1.
The Aaron Sachs case:
Burling, J., concurring in result.
For reversal — Chief Justice Weintraub, and Justices Burling, Francis, Proctor and Hall — 5.
For affirmance — Justices Jacobs and Sci-iettino — 2.