Namm v. Charles E. Frosst & Co.

2 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. Causation: Giving Teeth to the “Substantial Factor” Analysis

    Frost Brown Todd LLCD. Christopher RobinsonJanuary 28, 2013

    [34] Gray & Faulk, supra note 32, at 162. [35] Examples of states rejecting enterprise liability are as follows: Zaft v. Eli Lilly & Co., 676 S.W.2d 241 (Mo. 1984); Namm v. Charles E. Frosst & Co., 427 A.2d 1121 (N.J. App. Div. 1981); Cummins v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 495 A.2d 963 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1985).[36] Namm, 427 A.2d at 1129.

  2. Only the Supreme Court, Not a Lower Court, Can Recognize a New Cause of Action

    Lite DePalma Greenberg, LLCBruce GreenbergJune 29, 2012

    Plaintiff thus asked the Appellate Division to take the next step, and to “recognize a liberty interest in one’s reputation that is embedded in our constitution and subject to protection as a substantive due process right under the CRA.” This the panel would not do. Judge Messano stated that it was “inappropriate for us, as a court of intermediate jurisdiction, to recognize a cause of action, particularly one of constitutional dimension, heretofore never recognized under existing jurisprudence from our Supreme Court.”This is a well-established principle that dates back many years, to such cases as Namm v. Charles E. Frosst & Co., 178 N.J. Super. 19, 35 (App. Div. 1981). The Appellate Division rightly refused to recognize a new, constitutionally-based cause of action.