1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. N.J.
  4. 230 N.J.
  5. 230 N.J. Super. 117 (1988)
 

BROWN TRUCKING v. FLEXON INDUSTRIES

230 N.J. Super. 117 (1988)

552 A.2d 1026

OLIVER BROWN TRUCKING COMPANY, INC.; OLIVER BROWN AND CARRIE BROWN, PLAINTIFFS, v. FLEXON INDUSTRIES CORPORATION; ANTHONY LAMONT HAYES; CAROLYN HAYES, AS PARENT AND GUARDIAN FOR ANTHONY LAMONT HAYES; CAROLYN HAYES, INDIVIDUALLY; THOMAS JOSEPH KUKISH, JR.; PATRICIA MARIE BUCK, AS PARENT AND GUARDIAN FOR THOMAS JOSEPH KUKISH, JR.; AND PATRICIA MARIE BUCK, INDIVIDUALLY, CECIL ALLEN, PLAINTIFF, v. OLIVER BROWN TRUCKING COMPANY, INC., GILBERT LANGFORD, PLAINTIFF, v. OLIVER BROWN TRUCKING COMPANY, INC., DEFENDANT, LLOYD CROOKS, PLAINTIFF, v. OLIVER BROWN TRUCKING COMPANY, INC., DEFENDANT, WILLIAM WOLLEY, PLAINTIFF, v. OLIVER BROWN TRUCKING COMPANY, INC., DEFENDANT, ALLAN PRICE KIRBY, III, PLAINTIFF, v. OLIVER BROWN TRUCKING COMPANY, INC., DEFENDANT, PLYMOUTH APEX COMPANY AND FLEXON, PLAINTIFFS, v. OLIVER BROWN TRUCKING COMPANY, INC., DEFENDANT.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division Union County.

Decided October 21, 1988.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Clifford N. Kuhn for plaintiffs Lloyd Crooks and Gilbert Langford (Sherman, Kuhn, Justin & Wilson, attorneys).

Jay Krivitzky for plaintiff William Wolley (Krivitzky & Springer, attorneys).

Anthony D. Rinaldo for plaintiff Cecil Allen (Rinaldo & Rinaldo, attorneys).

Howard Mankoff for defendant Flexon Industries Corporation (Greenberg, Margolis, Ziegler, Schwartz, Dratch, Fishman, Franzblau & Faulkin, attorneys).

Mark C. Antin for plaintiffs Oliver Brown Trucking (Gennet & Kallman, attorneys).

Edward Brinkmann, Jr. for defendant Carolyn Hayes (Union County Legal Services, attorneys).

Anthony J. Riposta for plaintiff Allan Price Kirby, III.

Mark M. Bridge for plaintiffs Plymouth Apex Company, Inc. and Flexon Industries Corporation (Cozen & O'Connor, attorneys).

Barbara C. Robertson for defendant Oliver Brown Trucking Company, Inc. (Hoagland, Longo, Oropollo & Moran, attorneys).

MENZA, J.S.C.

This is defendant's motion for summary judgment seeking to bar the claims of plaintiffs, firemen who were injured during the course of fighting a fire, based on the application of the firemen's rule.

The primary question in this case is whether an owner of property who knowingly maintains a defective sprinkler system violates a duty to a fireman injured while on the premises fighting a fire.

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases