You are here: / / Applying New Jersey Law—Removal of Safety Guard from Machine Did Not D...

Applying New Jersey Law—Removal of Safety Guard from Machine Did Not Destroy the Applicability of Workers’ Compensation as the Exclusive Remedy

The First Department, over a two-justice dissent, reversed Supreme Court and dismissed a complaint alleging that a work-related injury was the result of an “intentional wrong” by the employer and, therefore, workers’ compensation was not the exclusive remedy.  The case required the application of New Jersey’s Workers’ Compensation Act, and the interpretation of the statutory term “intentional wrong” pursuant to New Jersey case law.  The injury to plaintiff’s fingers occurred on a machine from which a safety guard had been removed.  The First Department wrote:

…[I]n the present case there were no prior incidents or injuries caused by this machine; there is no evidence of deliberate deceit or fraudulent conduct on defendant’s part; and there were no OSHA violations issued to defendant prior to this incident. Although plaintiff testified that he requested on a number of occasions that the safety guard be replaced, he and other employees continued to use the machine without incident. Significantly, the accident would not have occurred absent plaintiff’s decision to retrieve a piece of stuck leather with his hand, rather than using a long-handled brush or long-handled screwdriver, which was the normal procedure to clear machine jams over the past 13 years that the machine had been in use. In fact, plaintiff testified at his deposition that he used such a long-handled screwdriver over the years to clear jams in the machine. … Thus, there is an insufficient basis for finding that defendant knew that its conduct in not replacing the safety screens was “substantially certain” to result in plaintiff’s injury …, or that there was a “virtual certainty” of injury … . The probability or knowledge that such injury “could” result, or even that an employer’s action was reckless or grossly negligent, is not enough… . Lebron v SML Veteran Leather, LLC, 2013 NY Slip Op 05664, 1st Dept 8-20-13

 

You might also like
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER FORFEITURE OF DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE WOULD BE A CONSTITUTIONALLY IMPERMISSIBLE EXCESSIVE FINE (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THE SCAFFOLD TILTED OR COLLAPSED CAUSING EVERYTHING IN IT TO CRASH ONTO HIM (FIRST DEPT).
PETITIONER, WHO WAS GRANTED A LICENSE TO ENTER RESPONDENT’S PROPERTY UNDER RPAPL 881 TO MAKE REPAIRS ON PETITIONER’S PROPERTY (OTHERWISE NOT ACCESSIBLE), WAS REQUIRED TO PAY RESPONDENT A LICENSE FEE.
Product Warranty Does Not Extend Statute of Limitations
DEFENDANT’S FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO A PROSPECTIVE JUROR WHO SAID HE WAS ‘NOT SURE’ HE COULD BE IMPARTIAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).
Questions of Fact About the Sequence of Two Rear-End Collisions Precluded Summary Judgment
TOW TRUCK DEFENDANTS FURNISHED THE CONDITION FOR THE REAR-END COLLISION BUT TOW TRUCK WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE, TOW TRUCK DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF, PURSUANT TO THE CONDOMINIUM DECLARATION AND OFFERING PLAN, WAS THE OWNER OF THE BASEMENT SPACE USED BY DEFENDANTS, PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ITS TRESPASS ACTION, BECAUSE THE DECLARATION AND OFFERING PLAN, AND THE REFERENCE TO IT IN THE DEEDS, WERE UNAMBIGUOUS, PAROL AGREEMENTS TRANSFERRING OWNERSHIP OF THE AREA TO DEFENDANTS WERE NOT ENFORCEABLE (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Local Law Purporting to Limit Term of County District Attorney Preempted by... Constructive Condition Precedent Properly Fashioned by Court