Zuckerman v. State

Hart, J., dissents and votes to affirm the judgment appealed from, with the following memorandum:

It is my opinion, contrary to the conclusion of my colleagues in the majority, that the trial court acted properly in its interpretation of the relevant documents and correctly ruled that the State owed no duty to the injured claimant either by way of contract privity or under the common law. Contracts which are explicit and clearly set forth the parties agreement or agreements *513involve only questions of law and the construction of such documents is a matter for the court.

The claimant sued in the…