Yuhas v. Mudge
| Citation | 129 N.J.Super. 207,322 A.2d 824 |
| Parties | John YUHAS, Guardian ad litem for Larry Yuhas, a minor, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Floyd W. MUDGE et al., Defendants, and Popular Mechanics Corporation and Hearst Corporation, Defendants-Respondents. |
| Decision Date | 01 July 1974 |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division |
Harvey L. Stern, Trenton, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Lenox, Giordano, Devlin, Delehey & Socey, Trenton, for defendants-respondents.
Before Judges HALPERN, MATTHEWS and BISCHOFF.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
HALPERN, P.J.A.D.
The novel question presented on this appeal is whether a magazine publisher may be held responsible in negligence for injuries resulting from the use by a paying customer of an alleged defective product advertised in its magazine, when it does not manufacture, distribute, sell, warrant or endorse the product. The trial judge found that no actionable duty existed against the publisher and granted summary judgment in favor of respondents. We affirm.
Defendants Christie and Ecco Products, Inc., manufacturers and sellers of fireworks, placed a paid advertisement in Popular Mechanics Magazine published by respondents Popular Mechanics Corp. and Hearst Corp. 1 Defendants Floyd Mudge and Michael Lashutka saw the advertisement and purchased the fireworks directly from Christie and Ecco. Infant plaintiffs Barry Yuhas and Larry Yuhas sustained personal injuries when the fireworks were exploded by Floyd Mudge. Admittedly, respondents did not manufacture, distribute, sell, test, warrant or endorse the fireworks; nor is there any indication in the record that they have ever received any direct pecuniary benefit from any sales of the multitude of products advertised in their magazine.
This suit was instituted against William Mudge, the owner of the property where the accident occurred: Floyd Mudge, the purchaser of the fireworks and the one who invited plaintiffs to see the fireworks and who exploded them; Michael Lashutka, who purchased the fireworks with Floyd Mudge; Edwin Christie and Ecco Products, Inc., manufacturers and sellers of the fireworks, and respondents, printers and publishers of the advertisement.
We are concerned only with the dismissal of plaintiffs' complaint against respondents. 2 Preliminarily, we note that plaintiffs' claims against some of the defendants still remain open; thus, the summary judgment appealed from is interlocutory rather than final, and leave to appeal should have been sought. R. 2:2--3(b) and R. 2:2--4. However, at this late stage, and in the interest of prompt disposition of the matter, the necessary leave is granted Munc pro tunc.
The thesis advanced by appellants to recover from respondents is that they publish a pseudo-scientific publication which has acquired an 'aura of authentativeness' in the public's mind and, therefore, they owed the reading public the duty to investigate and test inherently dangerous products advertised in their publication. They argue this is particularly true since the sale of fireworks is proscribed in New Jersey by N.J.S.A. 21:3--2. We disagree, and hold that no such legal duty rests upon respondents unless it undertakes to guarantee, warrant or endorse the product. To impose the suggested broad legal duty upon publishers of nationally circulated magazines, newspapers and other publications, would not only be impractical and unrealistic, but would have a staggering adverse effect on the commercial world and our economic system. For the law to permit such...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. Jones
...1, 487 A.2d 1260 (App.Div.1984); Ibberson v. Clark, 182 N.J.Super. 300, 302-303, 440 A.2d 1157 (App.Div.1982); Yuhas v. Mudge, 129 N.J.Super. 207, 209, 322 A.2d 824 (App.Div.1974).3 Although Susan in her appellate brief challenged the Law Division's order appointing a guardian ad litem to r......
-
Daniel v. Dow Jones & Co., Inc.
...lies against a newspaper for merely inaccurate reporting when the publication does not constitute libel"); Yuhas v. Mudge, 129 N.J.Super. 207, 209-10, 322 A.2d 824, 825 [1974] (relying on Ultramares, supra, found that liability for negligently publishing certain advertisements "would open t......
-
Zamora v. Columbia Broadcasting System
...deterrent effect on potential purveyors of printed material." Of interest also is the holding and language of Yuhas v. Mudge, 129 N.J.Super. 207, 322 A.2d 824 (1974) where the plaintiff was injured by a product advertised in defendant's "To impose the suggested broad legal duty upon publish......
-
Winter v. G.P. Putnam's Sons
...drug warning because the work was like a published advertisement of products rather than a reference work); Yuhas v. Mudge, 129 N.J.Super. 207, 209-10, 322 A.2d 824, 825 (1974) (magazine publisher not liable for injury caused by advertised product); Beasock v. Dioguardi Enters., Inc., 130 M......
-
How the Fifty States View Electronic Data as a “Product”
...Jersey law, a publisher had no duty to investigate and test allegedly injurious products advertised in its publication. Yuhas v. Mudge, 322 A.2d 824, 825 (N.J. Super. App. Div. 1974). Such liability “would have a staggering adverse effect” because it “would open the doors to a liability in ......
-
E-law 4: Computer Information Systems Law and System Operator Liability
...amend. I. 28. Discussed infra Part V.A. 29. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 280 (1964). 30. See, e.g., Yuhas v. Mudge, 322 A.2d 824, 825 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1974). 31. Id. 32. 968 F.2d 1110 (11th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1071 (1993). 33. The advertisement read......