TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

McBride v. Raichle Molitor, USA

McBride v. Raichle Molitor, USA, 662 A.2d 567 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1995)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · State Appellate Courts
Decided
July 17, 1995
Judges
Judges Shebell and Wallace
Citations
662 A.2d 567283 N.J. Super. 422
Cited by 16 1 descriptions by later courts

Opinion

283 N.J. Super. 422 (1995) 662 A.2d 567

JOSEPH MCBRIDE AND LAURIE MCBRIDE, HIS WIFE, PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS,

v.

RAICHLE MOLITOR, USA, DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT, AND MINSTAR, INC., TRADING AS TYROLIA, DEFENDANT.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

Argued June 7, 1995. Decided July 17, 1995.

*423 Before Judges SHEBELL and WALLACE.

Michael D. Schottland argued the cause for appellants ( Schottland, Aaron & Manning, attorneys; Mr. Schottland and Nicholas C. Caliendo, on the brief).

Samuel A. DeGonge argued the cause for respondent ( Law Offices of Samuel A. DeGonge, attorneys; Mr. DeGonge, of counsel; Samuel J. McNulty, on the brief).

PER CURIAM.

Following a bench trial, the court dismissed plaintiff's complaint against the sole remaining defendant Raichle Molitor, USA. The court concluded that Massachusetts law applied to plaintiffs' purchase contract for skis bought in Massachusetts from the Ski and Tennis Chalet, a retailer of Tyrolia ski products distributed in the United States by Raichle Molitor. Plaintiff Joseph McBride was injured in Massachusetts the first time he used the ski equipment. The court also found that plaintiffs had released Raichle Molitor by the execution of a release at the time of purchase.

Plaintiffs appeal from the dismissal of their complaint, urging that the trial court (1) should not have applied Massachusetts laws; (2) improperly expanded the scope of the retail agreement for which there was a lack of consideration; (3) improperly *424 released Raichle Molitor, USA from liability; and (4) erred in ruling that the retail agreement is not a contract of adhesion.

The June 29, 1994 order of dismissal is affirmed substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Fisher in his opinion reported at 283 N.J. Super. 471 , 662 A. 2d 592 (Law Div. 1995).

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

  • (enforcing exculpatory clause included in contract to sell equipment: ‘When an individual enters a ski shop to buy ski equipment, s/he does not have a need for those goods and services, merely a desire. * * * The skier merely faces the prospect of a ski-less weekend.”)
    Harmon v. Mt. Hood Meadows, Ltd., 932 P.2d 92 (Or. Ct. App. 1997)

Cited by 16 cases

View all citing references →
1995: 11996: 11997: 21998: 22002: 22004: 22005: 12009: 22013: 12020: 12021: 119952026peak 1997 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Hojnowski v. Vans Skate Park868 A.2d 1087 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2005)
  2. Soc. Hill Condominium Ass'n, Inc. v. Soc. Hill Assoc.789 A.2d 138 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2002)
  3. Gonzalez v. Ideal Tile Importing Co.853 A.2d 298 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2004)
  4. Dare v. Freefall Adventures, Inc.793 A.2d 125 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2002)
  5. Black v. Walker684 A.2d 1011 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1996)
  6. Newman v. Isuzu Motors America842 A.2d 255 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2004)

Most recent

  1. ALFRED LAWSON VS. OFFICER JEFF DEWAR (L-8788-20, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)No. A-2443-20 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. May 27, 2021)
  2. THOMAS MCKEOWN VS. AMERICAN GOLF CORP. (L-0996-17, MORRIS COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)No. A-3408-18T1 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Feb. 7, 2020)
  3. Bagley v. Mt. Bachelor, Inc.310 P.3d 692 (Or. Ct. App. 2013)
  4. Hubner v. SPRING VALLEY EQUESTRIAN975 A.2d 992 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2009)
  5. Marcinczyk v. Nj Police Training Commission968 A.2d 1205 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2009)
  6. Hojnowski v. Vans Skate Park868 A.2d 1087 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2005)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
McBride v. Minstar, Inc., 662 A.2d 592 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1994) 17

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list