82 A.2d 210 (N.J.Super.A.D. 1951), A-353, Reilly v. 180 Club, Inc.

CourtSuperior Court of New Jersey
Writing for the CourtJAYNE, J.A.D.
JudgeBefore Judges McGEEHAN, JAYNE, and WM. J. BRENNAN, JR.
Citation82 A.2d 210,14 N.J.Super. 420
Docket NumberA-353.
Date06 July 1951
PartiesREILLY v. 180 CLUB, Inc.

Page 210

82 A.2d 210 (N.J.Super.A.D. 1951)

14 N.J.Super. 420

REILLY

v.

180 CLUB, Inc.

No. A-353.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

July 6, 1951

Argued June 11, 1951.

Action by John Reilly against 180 Club, Inc., a corporation, to recover damages sustained by plaintiff while a guest in defendant's tavern when he was injured in a fight in the tavern. The lower court rendered a judgment for plaintiff after jury verdict and defendant appealed. The Superior Court, Appellate Division, Jayne, J.A.D., held that the question of whether defendant's bartender exercised that degree of care and forethought which an ordinarily prudent bartender would have exercised in protecting the plaintiff from injury from fellow guests at the tavern was a question for the jury.

Affirmed.

In action by a guest at a tavern for injuries sustained during a fight in tavern between two other guests, whether tavern owner's bartender exercised that degree of care and forethought which an ordinarily prudent person would have exercised in protecting the plaintiff from injury from fellow guests and whether plaintiff exercised prudence in remaining in tavern while a fight ensued were questions for jury.

Page 211

[14 N.J.Super. 421] Thomas L. Morrissey, Jersey City, argued the cause for appellant (Carpenter, Gilmour & Dwyer, Jersey City, attorneys; Patrick & Dwyer and James P. Beggans, Jersey City, of counsel and on the brief).

Abraham J. Slurzberg, Jersey City, argued the cause for respondent (Maurice M. Krivit, Jersey City, attorney).

Before Judges McGEEHAN, JAYNE, and WM. J. BRENNAN, JR.

OPINION

JAYNE, J.A.D.

The transcript of the testimony in this case portrays an unfortunate episode in the life of Reilly.

While the narrative of the interrelated events may be summarized, yet in the interest of precision it is expedient to quote Verbatim et literatim rather liberally from the testimony.

On the evening of Memorial Day in the year 1949 the plaintiff John Reilly resolved to visit a nearby tavern known as the ‘ 180 Club’ on Wilkinson Avenue in the City of Jersey City. Among its accommodations it contained a semi-circular bar which we are informed is not by reason of its spherical form productive of any special hazards in its appropriate use. Wooden stools were advantageously stationed around its contour for the comfort of the patrons.

[14 N.J.Super. 422] While the safe use of a stool probably depends particularly upon the capacity of the occupant to respond with alacrity to the deviations of equilibrium, yet our attention has not been invited to any authority holding that stools in a barroom are Per se dangerous instrumentalities.

Upon entering at about 10:30 P.M. Reilly recognized among those present his acquaintances Messrs. Moriarity, McGee, and McKitrick in front of the bar with McDermott officiating behind it. Reilly forthwith mounted a vacant stool at the bar, ‘ wrapped his feet around the rungs,’ and began to achieve the object of his visit. Presently Gillespie, O'Neill, and Gilligan dropped in.

The contingency which immediately attracted attention was that Moriarity was ‘ needling’ McGee with unprecedented continuity and persistence. Moriarity's inaugural comments ungraciously pertained to McGee's necktie, then to the latter's ‘ sharp pants,’ then followed a dissertation concerning McGee's parsimony in which Moriarity proclaimed that ‘ McGee was...

To continue reading

Request your trial
27 practice notes
  • 156 A.2d 1 (N.J. 1959), A--22, Rappaport v. Nichols
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • November 23, 1959
    ...the proximate consequences of his negligence including the assault on the plaintiff by the other patron. Cf. Reilly v. 180 Club, Inc., 14 N.J.Super. 420, 82 A.2d 210, In Waynick v. Chicago's Last Department Store, 269 F.2d 322 (7 Cir. 1959), the complaint charged that the defendants had unl......
  • 65 Cal.2d 114, 28847, Taylor v. Centennial Bowl, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • August 15, 1966
    ...186 N.Y.S. 730; Moone v. Smith, 6 Ga.App. 649, 65 S.E. 712, later app. 7 Ga.App. 675, 67 S.E. 836; Reilly v. 180 Club. 14 N.J.Super. 420, 82 A.2d 210; Miller v. Derusa, La.App., 77 So.2d 748; Greco v. Sumner Tavern, Inc., 233 Mass. 144, 128 N.E.2d 788; McFadden v. Bancroft Hotel Corporation......
  • 202 A.2d 439 (N.J.Super.A.D. 1964), A--653, Mayer v. Housing Authority of Jersey City
    • United States
    • Superior Court of New Jersey
    • June 30, 1964
    ...with this obligation. Compare Williams v. Essex Amusement Corp., 133 N.J.L. 218, 43 A.2d 828 (Sup.Ct.1945); Reilly v. 180 Club Inc., 14 N.J.Super. 420, 82 A.2d 210 (App.Div.1951); Crammer v. Willston Operating Co., Inc., 19 N.J.Super. 489, 88 A.2d 630 (App.Div.1952); Klinksy v. Hanson Van W......
  • 490 P.2d 1182 (Ariz.App. Div. 2 1971), 2 CA-CIV 956, Pierce v. Lopez
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Arizona
    • November 24, 1971
    ...disturbances the development of which a tavern keeper should be reasonably alert to detect and suppress. Reilly v. 180 Club, Inc., 14 N.J.Super. 420, 82 A.2d 210 (1951); Fisher v. Robbins, supra. We do not, however, find this to mean that a tavern keeper must possess extraordinary powers of......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
27 cases
  • 156 A.2d 1 (N.J. 1959), A--22, Rappaport v. Nichols
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • November 23, 1959
    ...the proximate consequences of his negligence including the assault on the plaintiff by the other patron. Cf. Reilly v. 180 Club, Inc., 14 N.J.Super. 420, 82 A.2d 210, In Waynick v. Chicago's Last Department Store, 269 F.2d 322 (7 Cir. 1959), the complaint charged that the defendants had unl......
  • 65 Cal.2d 114, 28847, Taylor v. Centennial Bowl, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • August 15, 1966
    ...186 N.Y.S. 730; Moone v. Smith, 6 Ga.App. 649, 65 S.E. 712, later app. 7 Ga.App. 675, 67 S.E. 836; Reilly v. 180 Club. 14 N.J.Super. 420, 82 A.2d 210; Miller v. Derusa, La.App., 77 So.2d 748; Greco v. Sumner Tavern, Inc., 233 Mass. 144, 128 N.E.2d 788; McFadden v. Bancroft Hotel Corporation......
  • 202 A.2d 439 (N.J.Super.A.D. 1964), A--653, Mayer v. Housing Authority of Jersey City
    • United States
    • Superior Court of New Jersey
    • June 30, 1964
    ...with this obligation. Compare Williams v. Essex Amusement Corp., 133 N.J.L. 218, 43 A.2d 828 (Sup.Ct.1945); Reilly v. 180 Club Inc., 14 N.J.Super. 420, 82 A.2d 210 (App.Div.1951); Crammer v. Willston Operating Co., Inc., 19 N.J.Super. 489, 88 A.2d 630 (App.Div.1952); Klinksy v. Hanson Van W......
  • 490 P.2d 1182 (Ariz.App. Div. 2 1971), 2 CA-CIV 956, Pierce v. Lopez
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Arizona
    • November 24, 1971
    ...disturbances the development of which a tavern keeper should be reasonably alert to detect and suppress. Reilly v. 180 Club, Inc., 14 N.J.Super. 420, 82 A.2d 210 (1951); Fisher v. Robbins, supra. We do not, however, find this to mean that a tavern keeper must possess extraordinary powers of......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT