Berg v. Reaction Motors Division, Thiokol Chemical Corp.

Decision Date21 May 1962
Docket NumberNo. A--99,A--99
Citation37 N.J. 396,181 A.2d 487
PartiesMagnus BERG, Hans Carlson, et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. REACTION MOTORS DIVISION, THIOKOL CHEMICAL CORP., a corporation of New Jersey, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtNew Jersey Supreme Court

Marshall Crowley, Newark, argued the cause for the appellant (Mead, Gleeson, Hansen & Pantages, Newark, attorneys; Victor C. Hansen, Newark, of counsel).

Howard A. Goldberger, Newark, argued the cause for the respondents (Goldberger & Ostrow, Newark, attorneys; Irving Ostrow, Newark, of counsel).

Roger P. Marquis of the Dept. of Justice argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae (David M. Satz, Jr., U.S. Atty., attorney).

The opinion of the court was delivered by

JACOBS, J.

The plaintiffs obtained a judgment against the defendant in the Law Division for compensatory and punitive damages. The defendant appealed and while its appeal was pending in the Appellate Division we certified it on our own motion.

The defendant had contracts with the United States for the development and production of the rocket engine for the X--15 supersonic airplane. The engine is designed for a maximum thrust of 50,000 pounds and 250,000 horsepower. The developmental stage of the engine required numerous tests and the critical testing period began in the spring of 1958. It took place in a test area in Rockaway Township at test stands E--1 and R--2 which were bedded on large concrete bases. E--1 was approximately 6800 feet and R--2 was approximately 3500 feet from the center of the village of Lake Telemark. When tests were conducted the thrusts caused turbulences in the air, and flames approximately 20 to 25 feet long and 18 inches to 2 feet around were observable at the test stands. The noises which accompanied the tests were referred to in a brochure issued by the defendant as sometimes thunderous and describable as 'the whine of a jet, the smash of a cannon, the roar of a rocket engine.'

Shortly after it commenced testing, the defendant began receiving complaints from the plaintiffs who were the owners and occupants of homes at Lake Telemark. Under date of July 10, 1958 the plaintiff Halfdan Thoresen wrote a letter to the defendant and, in response, received a visit from Colonel Richard F. Whitcomb who was in charge of its public relations. Mr. Thoresen testified that he complained to the Colonel that the defendant's testing was disturbing his sleep and causing his home 'to come apart' and that the Colonel had said that 'the damages, if they were due to their negligence, they would be repaired.' The Colonel acknowledged that he had visited Halfdan Thoresen following receipt of the letter. He testified that he explained the nature and significance of the defendant's program and denied that he ever made any absolute commitment to pay for any damages caused by the testing. The Colonel testified that the only other written complaint he received was from the plaintiff August Selland who wrote a letter under date of October 3, 1958. Mr. Selland testified that the Colonel called upon him in response to his letter, that he restated his complaints about the noise and damage to his property, and that the Colonel had then inquired 'Why don't you move to a place further away where this noise won't bother you.' This was disputed in the Colonel's testimony.

On August 7, 1958 the Colonel, in the company of Mr. Michael who was also a public relations representative of the defendant, attended a meeting of the Lake Telemark residents who were complaining about the effects of the defendant's activities. A film was shown and the residents were told about the high importance of the X--15 and the urgent necessity for the testing. The plaintiff Erling Thoresen testified that the complainants at the meeting were advised that there 'would be no relief at this time' from the noise and that 'if anything it would get worse.' On August 18, 1958 the members of the Rockaway Township Committee met with representatives of the defendant and as a result the defendant, according to Colonel Whitcomb's testimony, undertook to do the following: (1) to restrict its major test operations to the hours between 7 A.M. and 8 P.M. until further notice; (2) to set up an auxiliary burner control which would burn off excess ammonia fumes; (3) to engage a seismographic consultant; (4) to arrange firing test schedules, insofar as practical, so that the tests would not interfere with the recess periods of the K. D. Malone School; (5) to submit weekly reports of test firings to the Township Committee; (6) to procure the services of a consultant in sound levels and in the possibility of constructing and designing a sound suppressor; and (7) to honor its responsibility for legal claims.

The defendant confined its major test operations to the hours between 7 A.M. and 8 P.M. until April 1959. Colonel Whitcomb testified that at that time, and following a conversation with Mayor Vandermark of Rockaway Township, the testing hours were extended because 'we were falling so far behind in our urgent schedule with the Air Force that they insisted that we step up our program.' The defendant's undertaking to control the ammonia fumes was admittedly fulfilled. Similarly, it fulfilled its undertaking to engage a seismographic consultant. This consultant took readings in the Lake Telemark area and testified that he picked up no ground vibrations which could do damage to the nearby structures. He acknowledged, however, that he was not an expert in air vibrations or their effects. Colonel Whitcomb testified that the undertaking to avoid testing, so far as practical, during recess periods of the Malone School was fulfilled, although the plaintiffs point to evidence which tends to indicate that testing may have taken place during such periods. Weekly reports were submitted to the Township Committee until August 1959. At that time the reports were discontinued and the earlier reports were returned to the defendant. Colonel Whitcomb testified that this course was followed because the defendant's security officer had determined that 'the accumulation of a number of these reports constituted the revelation of information which would be injurious to the national security.'

The defendant did engage a consultant to study sound levels and the possibility of designing and constructing a sound suppressor. This consultant testified that he conducted tests in the Lake Telemark area and concluded that the sound pressures were insufficient to produce damage to the nearby structures, but the plaintiffs strongly attack the nature and sufficiency of his tests along with his conclusion. In April 1959 a miniature device for sound suppression was constructed and successfully tested. Colonel Whitcomb testified that after the defendant received the final report in April 1959, it prepared 'a comprehensive and formal proposal to the Air Force' for the construction and use of a noise suppressor on the rocket engine and that it was still awaiting approval from the Air Force. The plaintiffs attack the adequacy of the defendant's efforts in connection with the proposed noise suppressor and suggest that it could have proceeded expeditiously without awaiting Air Force action if it had been willing to expend its own funds. In his testimony enumerating the defendant's undertakings, Colonel Whitcomb concluded with the statement that the defendant had agreed that 'it would not avoid any responsibility for legal claims.' Mayor Vandermark's testimony was that the defendant had undertaken to compensate for 'any property damage which could be attributed to the testing which was occurring at their test site.' The Colonel and Mayor agreed that special damage complaints were to be honored if certified by the Rockaway Building Inspector and a reputable contractor to be mutually agreed upon by the township and the defendant. The Mayor stated that no contractor was ever mutually agreed upon because, he assumed, 'no one ever formally presented a claim to the Rockaway Township governing body.' The Building Inspector testified that, pursuant to instructions from the Mayor, he did examine houses of complainants in the Lake Telemark area and found damage which, in his opinion, was caused by the vibrations resulting from the defendant's testing activities.

In September 1958 a petition seeking relief from the defendant's activities and bearing 185 signatures was presented to the Township Committee and this led to a meeting at which Colonel Whitcomb again spoke on the defendant's behalf. On September 17, 1958 the complaining residents formed the Rockaway Township Property Owners Association which sent protests to the Township Committee and later to the State Department of Health and the State Board of Education. On December 15, 1958 a meeting, attended by representatives of the Association and the defendant, as well as local school representatives, was held in the township. Following this meeting, representatives of the State Department of Health joined with local school representatives in an examination of the Malone School building and an inspection of it during the course of one of the defendant's tests. Their report indicated that there were no significantly adverse effects on the school but the plaintiffs point to testimony that the only test conducted by the defendant during the course of the inspection was of 10 seconds duration. On April 9, 1959 the plaintiffs filed their complaint against the defendant in the Law Division of the Superior Court. Originally there were 16 causes of action but one was voluntarily dismissed. The remaining 15 causes of action concerned 11 married couples and 4 unmarried persons. The complaints contained counts setting forth causes of action sounding in negligence, nuisance and trespass. After the filing of an answer and the entry of a pretrial order, the matter came on for trial in September 1960....

To continue reading

Request your trial
111 cases
  • Abraham v. Raso
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • January 1, 1998
    ...knowledge of a high degree of probability of harm and reckless indifference to consequences." Berg v. Reaction Motors Div., Thiokol Chem. Corp., 37 N.J. 396, 414, 181 A.2d 487, 496 (1962). "However one describes the conduct that will justify punitive damages, one thing is clear: 'The key to......
  • Nappe v. Anschelewitz, Barr, Ansell & Bonello
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • July 2, 1984
    ...supra, 73 N.J. at 454, 375 A.2d 652; DiGiovanni v. Pessel, supra, 55 N.J. at 190-91, 260 A.2d 510; Berg v. Reaction Motors Div., 37 N.J. 396, 413-14, 181 A.2d 487 (1962); Magee v. Holland, 27 N.J.L. 86, 97-98 (Sup.Ct.1858); Cabakov v. Thatcher, 37 N.J.Super. 249, 259, 117 A.2d 298 (App.Div.......
  • 49 Prospect Street Tenants Ass'n v. Sheva Gardens, Inc.
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • August 22, 1988
    ...supra, 97 N.J. at 49, 477 A.2d 1224. There must have been a "positive element of conscious wrongdoing." Berg v. Reaction Motors Div., 37 N.J. 396, 414, 181 A.2d 487 (1962). under count seven, was intentional and/or willful and wanton under count eight, entitling plaintiffs to an award of co......
  • Smith v. Wade
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • April 20, 1983
    ...v. Laclede Gas Co., 553 S.W.2d 309 (Mo.App.1977); Butcher v. Petranek, 181 Mont. 358, 593 P.2d 743 (1979); Berg v. Reaction Motors Division, 37 N.J. 396, 181 A.2d 487 (1962); Robison v. Katz, 94 N.M. 314, 610 P.2d 201 (App.), cert. denied, 94 N.M. 675, 615 P.2d 992 (1980); Soucy v. Greyhoun......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT