Reilly v. 180 Club, Inc., No. A--353

CourtNew Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division
Writing for the CourtJAYNE
Citation14 N.J.Super. 420,82 A.2d 210
PartiesREILLY v. 180 CLUB, Inc.
Decision Date06 July 1951
Docket NumberNo. A--353

Page 420

14 N.J.Super. 420
82 A.2d 210
REILLY

v.
180 CLUB, Inc.
No. A--353.
Superior Court of New Jersey
Appellate Division.
Argued June 11, 1951.
Decided July 6, 1951.

Page 421

[82 A.2d 211] 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.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

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.

Page 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 too cheap to buy a drink and he never did buy a drink and he wouldn't buy a drink for his own brother.'

Gilligan supplied the following description of the march of affairs: 'It would go on and on. Then it would seem Moriarity would get friendly with McGee; you would think everything was settled and, bingo, he would get sore at him again, and start, 'Ah, you never were any good.' McGee told me, 'I can only take so much."

And so Moriarity's 'needling,' McGee's exasperation, and the chosen...

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 practice notes
  • Tormo v. Yormark, Civ. A. No. 298-73.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. District of New Jersey
    • May 12, 1975
    ...(App.Div.1955). Business proprietors have been held similarly liable to invitees on their premises. E. g., Reilly v. 180 Club, Inc., 14 N.J.Super. 420, 82 A.2d 210 (App.Div.1951); 40 Am.Jur.2d, Hotels, Motels, etc. § 108. Cf. Mayer v. Housing Authority of Jersey City, 84 N.J.Super. 411, 202......
  • Clohesy v. Food Circus Supermarkets, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • June 26, 1997
    ...A. 459] (E. & A. 1931); Williams v. Essex Amusement Corp., 133 N.J.L. 218, 219 [43 A.2d 828] (Sup.Ct.1945); Reilly v. 180 Club, Inc., 14 N.J.Super. 420, 424 [82 A.2d 210] (App. Div.1951); Crammer v. Willston Operating Co., Inc., 19 N.J.Super. 489, 490 [88 A.2d 630] (App. Div.1952); Becker v......
  • Goldberg v. Housing Authority of City of Newark, No. A--3
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • December 3, 1962
    ...attending a crowded theatre, was unintentionally floored by a running boy. There was no usher resent. In Reilly v. 180 Club, Inc., 14 N.J.Super. 420, 82 A.2d 210 (App.Div.1951), two patrons at a bar engaged in 'needling' which led to a scuffle in which plaintiff, a nonparticipant, was pushe......
  • Mayer v. Housing Authority of Jersey City, No. A--653
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division
    • 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......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
26 cases
  • Tormo v. Yormark, Civ. A. No. 298-73.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. District of New Jersey
    • May 12, 1975
    ...(App.Div.1955). Business proprietors have been held similarly liable to invitees on their premises. E. g., Reilly v. 180 Club, Inc., 14 N.J.Super. 420, 82 A.2d 210 (App.Div.1951); 40 Am.Jur.2d, Hotels, Motels, etc. § 108. Cf. Mayer v. Housing Authority of Jersey City, 84 N.J.Super. 411, 202......
  • Clohesy v. Food Circus Supermarkets, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • June 26, 1997
    ...A. 459] (E. & A. 1931); Williams v. Essex Amusement Corp., 133 N.J.L. 218, 219 [43 A.2d 828] (Sup.Ct.1945); Reilly v. 180 Club, Inc., 14 N.J.Super. 420, 424 [82 A.2d 210] (App. Div.1951); Crammer v. Willston Operating Co., Inc., 19 N.J.Super. 489, 490 [88 A.2d 630] (App. Div.1952); Becker v......
  • Goldberg v. Housing Authority of City of Newark, No. A--3
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • December 3, 1962
    ...attending a crowded theatre, was unintentionally floored by a running boy. There was no usher resent. In Reilly v. 180 Club, Inc., 14 N.J.Super. 420, 82 A.2d 210 (App.Div.1951), two patrons at a bar engaged in 'needling' which led to a scuffle in which plaintiff, a nonparticipant, was pushe......
  • Mayer v. Housing Authority of Jersey City, No. A--653
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division
    • 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......
  • 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