Reiter v. Max Marx Color & Chemical Co.

200 A.2d 616, 42 N.J. 352, 1964 N.J. LEXIS 214
Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided May 18, 1964·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered

Pee Cueiam.

We affirm the judgment of the Appellate Division substantially for the reasons given by it. 82 N. J. Super. 334 (App. Div. 1964). To avoid any further misapprehension, we state, with respect to the issue of invitation, that when an owner of premises engages a contractor to perform certain work or repairs thereon, under the law be impliedly invites the employees of the contractor to use such part or parts of the premises as are reasonably necessary for the doing of the work or the making of the repairs.

For affirmance — Chief Justice Weintkaub, and Justices Jacobs, Eeancis, Peoctoe, Hall, Schettino and HaueMA® — 7.

For reversal — None.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Reiter v. Max Marx Color & Chemical Co., 200 A.2d 616, 42 N.J. 352, 1964 N.J. LEXIS 214 (N.J. 1964).

200 A.2d 616 (Reiter v. Max Marx Color & Chemical Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Berrios v. United Parcel Service
627 A.2d 665 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1993)