From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kaplan v. Haines

Supreme Court of New Jersey
Apr 1, 1968
51 N.J. 404 (N.J. 1968)

Summary

sanctioning negligence-view, lack-of-informed-consent tort twenty years prior to Largey

Summary of this case from Matthies v. Mastromonaco

Opinion

Argued March 18, 1968 —

Decided April 1, 1968.

On appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court, Appellate Division, whose opinions are reported at 96 N.J. Super. 242, 232 A.2d 840.

Mr. Jerome S. Lieb argued the cause for appellants ( Messrs. Harkavy Lieb, attorneys; Mr. Abraham I. Harkavy of counsel).

Mr. William G. Bischoff argued the cause for respondent ( Messrs. Taylor, Bischoff, Neutze Williams, attorneys).


The judgment is affirmed substantially for the reasons given in the majority opinion of Judge Lewis in the Appellate Division.

For affirmance — Chief Justice WEINTRAUB and Justices JACOBS, FRANCIS, PROCTOR, HALL, SCHETTINO and HANEMAN — 7.

For reversal — None.


Summaries of

Kaplan v. Haines

Supreme Court of New Jersey
Apr 1, 1968
51 N.J. 404 (N.J. 1968)

sanctioning negligence-view, lack-of-informed-consent tort twenty years prior to Largey

Summary of this case from Matthies v. Mastromonaco

sanctioning negligence-view, lack-of-informed-consent tort twenty years prior to Largey

Summary of this case from Darwin v. Gooberman
Case details for

Kaplan v. Haines

Case Details

Full title:JOHANNA KAPLAN AND SIDNEY KAPLAN, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. KEITH HAINES…

Court:Supreme Court of New Jersey

Date published: Apr 1, 1968

Citations

51 N.J. 404 (N.J. 1968)
241 A.2d 235

Citing Cases

Largey v. Rothman

By answer to a specific interrogatory on this point, the jurors responded that defendant had not "fail[ed] to…

Navarro v. George Koch Sons, Inc.

If the instructions set forth the principles of law in a clear and complete manner, they are sufficient.…