Court Opinion

ID: 9703881
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 00:11:28.82992+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:52.707414
License: Public Domain

Burling, J.
(dissenting). I concur with that portion of the majority opinion holding that B. S. 16:1 — 48 et seq., is not retroactive. In my dissent in Collopy v. Newark Eye and Ear Infirmary, 27 N. J. 29, 61 (1958), incorporated by reference in Dalton v. St. Luke's Catholic Church, 27 N. J. 22, 28 (1958), and Benton v. Y. M. C. A., 27 N. J. 67, 72 (1958), my views were summed up as follows:
“Until such time as I may be convinced by a firm foundation in fact that the overturn of the charitable immunity doctrine will, *230weighing all the interests involved, have a' socially beneficial effect I would uphold it.” (27 N. J., at page 67)
Suffice it to say that the legislative hearings and action following the decisions of this court in the recent charitable immunity cases have not convinced me otherwise.
Accordingly, I would vote to reverse the order denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
For affirmance — Chief Justice Weintraub, and Justices Jacobs, Francis, Proctor, Hall and Schettino — 6.
For reversal — Justice Burling — 1.