Andre v. Union Tank Car Co., Inc.
| Decision Date | 27 March 1987 |
| Citation | 216 N.J.Super. 219,523 A.2d 278 |
| Parties | , Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 11,400 Jose ANDRE and Irisabela Andre, his wife, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNION TANK CAR COMPANY, INC.; "A" Manufacturing Co., a fictitious name representing a defendant whose identity is unknown to plaintiffs; "B" Distributing Co., a fictitious name representing a defendant whose identity is unknown to plaintiffs, Defendants-Respondents. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
Forman, Forman, Cardonsky & Andril, Elizabeth, for plaintiffs-appellants (Robert A. Ungvary, of counsel and on the brief).
Carpenter, Bennett & Morrissey, Newark, for defendants-respondents (Robert E. Turtz, on the brief).
Before Judges MICHELS, O'BRIEN and LANDAU.
Plaintiffs Jose Andre and Irisabela Andre, his wife, appeal from the R. 4:40-1 dismissal of their product liability suit against defendant Union Tank Car Company, makers of a railroad tank car from which Jose fell while at work venting the car for his employer, Essex Chemical Company. The opinion below was reported as Andre v. Union Tank Car Co., Inc., 213 N.J.Super. 51, 516 A.2d 277 (Law Div.1985), where the facts and applicable law have been set forth.
We agree with Judge Sachar that the failure-to-warn issue, which survived plaintiffs' voluntary dismissal of their negligence and design defect claims, has been preempted by the Federal Railroad Safety Act, 45 U.S.C.A. § 421, et seq. and regulations enacted thereunder, and we affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in the cogent analysis of that issue contained in his opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1); Andre, 213 N.J.Super. at 59-66, 516 A.2d 277. This conclusion makes it unnecessary for us to consider the question of duty-to-warn under New Jersey products liability law and we expressly refrain from approving or disapproving so much of the opinion below as treats with that issue.
Inasmuch as plaintiffs' case was properly dismissed under R. 4:40-1 prior to reaching the jury, their argument on appeal that mention of the negligence of Jose's employer, Essex Chemical Company, constituted reversible error is also moot.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Feldman v. Lederle Laboratories, a Div. of American Cyanamid Co.
...be violated, or vice versa." Andre v. Union Tank Car Co. Inc., 213 N.J.Super. 51, 62, 516 A.2d 277 (Law.Div.1987), aff'd 216 N.J.Super. 219, 523 A.2d 278 (App.Div.1987). An example of conflict preemption is provided by the case of Southern Railway Co. v. Reid, 222 U.S. 424, 32 S.Ct. 140, 56......
-
Dewey v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.
...460, 479 A.2d 374 (1984); Andre v. Union Tank Car Co., Inc., 213 N.J.Super. 51, 65, 516 A.2d 277 (Law Div.1985), aff'd 216 N.J.Super. 219, 523 A.2d 278 (App.Div.1987). Any preemption analysis begins with examining whether the preemption is "express." "Express preemption" is defined as creat......
-
Macias v. Saberhagen Holdings, Inc.
...all potential dangers would warn of nothing.” Andre v. Union Tank Car Co., 213 N.J.Super. 51, 67, 516 A.2d 277 (1985), aff'd,216 N.J.Super. 219, 523 A.2d 278 (1987). ¶ 56 The majority concludes the respirator manufacturers had a duty to warn of asbestos exposure because their respirators we......
-
Township of Middle v. Public Developers Corp.
...(App.Div.1988). In Andre v. Union Tank Car Co., Inc., 213 N.J.Super. 51, 516 A.2d 277 (Law Div.1985), aff'd per curiam 216 N.J.Super. 219, 523 A.2d 278 (App.Div.1987), it was To determine whether plaintiff's claim is in conflict with the federal scheme, a two prong test is employed. See Ray......