Sun Copper & Wire Co. v. White Lamps, Inc., L4954
| Decision Date | 15 February 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. L4954,L4954 |
| Parties | SUN COPPER & WIRE CO. v. WHITE LAMPS, Inc., et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court |
Kristeller & Zucker, Newark (Saul J. Zucker, Newark, appearing), for plaintiff.
Charles H. Roemer, Paterson, for the defendant Walnut Investment Co.
William K. Flanagan, Newark, for defendant White Lamps, Inc. CONLON, J.C.C. (Assigned).
The defendant, Walnut Investment Co. moves for summary judgment on the ground that the material facts involved are not in dispute and that it is not legally responsible for the damages claimed by the plaintiff.
The defendant Walnut Investment Co. was the owner of a multi-floor factory building located at No. 132 Beckwith Avenue, Paterson, New Jersey. The plaintiff was the tenant of the basement under a written lease with the owner, and the defendant White Lamps, Inc. was the tenant of the first floor under a written lease with the owner's predecessor in title. Both leases are before the court. The premises were equipped with a sprinkler system. The defendant, White Lamps, Inc. in the process of its business, maintained an electric oven designed to generate a temperature of approximately 1300 degrees Fahrenheit. On the evening of January 10, 1950 the oven was in operation and was unattended. The heat generated by it caused a sprinkler head, located directly above the oven, to fuse and discharge water. The water seeped through the first floor occupied by the defendant White Lamps, Inc. and into the basement occupied by the plaintiff causing substantial damage.
The defendant, Walnut Investment Co. cross-claims against the defendant White Lamps, Inc. on the ground that the loss sustained by the plaintiff was due to the negligence of White Lamps, Inc.
The basis of the present motion is, in effect, that under the undisputed facts the landlord, by the terms of its leases with the two tenants, was under no obligation to the plaintiff and is therefore entitled to a summary judgment. The plaintiff, on the other hand, contends that the lessor did have an obligation to the plaintiff to maintain and supervise the operation of the sprinkler system and that a jury question is presented on the question as to whether or not that obligation was complied with.
Defendant contends that its exemption from liability arises from one clause in each of its leases with the two tenants involved. In paragraph 20 of its lease with White Lamps Inc. it is provided in effect that the tenant was to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kuzmiak v. Brookchester, Inc.
...becomes a subject of litigation.' Generally, the clause is strictly construed against the lessor. Sun Copper & Wire Co. v. White Lamps, Inc., 12 N.J.Super. 87, 79 A.2d 93 (Law.Div.1951); Zimmerman, Inc. v. Daggett & Ramsdell, Inc., 34 N.J.Super. 81, 111 A.2d 448 (Super.Ct., Essex Co. 1954).......
-
Midland Carpet Corp. v. Franklin Associated Properties
...636 (App.Div.1955); Kuzmiak v. Brookchester, 33 N.J.Super. 575, 582, 111 A.2d 425 (App.Div. 1955); Sun Copper and Wire Co. v. White Lamps, Inc., 12 N.J.Super. 87, 79 A.2d 93 (Law Div. 1951). But 'where the terms of a writing are plain and unambiguous, there is no room for construction, sinc......
- Barnhart v. United Auto., Aircraft, Agr. Implement Workers of America (UAW-CIO)
-
Wade v. Six Park View Corp.
...It might be added that the question here is not as to the construction of such a clause. Sun Copper and Wire Co. v. White Lamps, Inc., 12 N.J.Super. 87, 79 A.2d 93 (Law Div.1951). It is said, referring to the allegations of the reply, that where a motion is made for a summary judgment, the ......