Wolczak v. National Elec. Products Corp.

Decision Date06 March 1961
Docket NumberNo. A--733,A--733
PartiesAnthony WOLCZAK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NATIONAL ELECTRIC PRODUCTS CORP., corporation of the State of Delaware and/or Hanson-Van Winkle Munning Company, a corporation, individually, severally and/or jointly, Defendants-Respondents.
CourtNew Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division

Herbert E. Greenstone, Newark, for plaintiff (Greenstone & Greenstone, Newark, attorneys; Jerry M. Finn, Newark, on the brief).

George P. Moser, Union City, for defendant Hanson-Van Winkle Munning Co. (William V. Roveto, Union City, of counsel).

Joseph V. Cullum, Union City, for defendant National Electric Products Corp. (Townsend & Doyle (now Doyle & Galvin), Jersey City, attorneys; Joseph V. Cullum, Union City, of counsel).

Before Judges CONFORD, FREUND and KILKENNY.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

FREUND, J.A.D.

Plaintiff Anthony Wolczak appeals from a Law Division judgment dismissing his personal injury complaint at the close of all the evidence. His injuries were sustained on February 26, 1957, while he was in the process of drilling an overhead steel beam at the plant of defendant National Electric Products Corp. (National). His electric drill jammed and kicked on him, causing him to fall 10 or 12 feet into an empty steel tank.

Plaintiff was employed as an ironworker by the Elbert Lively Company, engaged primarily in the construction of industrial monorail systems. Defendant Hanson-Van Winkle Munning Company (Hanson) had, in the autumm of 1956, entered into an agreement with National to manufacture and furnish 15 silver-plating tanks and to supply a monorail system for the latter's Elizabeth plant. Hanson, in turn, contracted to the Lively firm the task of providing all equipment, materials and labor necessary for the erection of the monorail structure.

The steel tanks were delivered to National's factory in the early part of February 1957, and were installed by National's own employees. Each of the metal vats was about 11 1/2 feet wide, 1 1/2 feet long, 3 feet deep, and weighed approximately one ton; they were coated on the inside with a rubberized or plastic material. The tanks were placed in parallel fashion at the approximate center of National's 750-foot-long building.

The Lively Company commenced installation of the overhead system--designed to run laterally above the tanks--on February 21, 1957. Work progressed rapidly on the erection of the columns, the supporting members, and the steel beams that would carry the monorails; an overhead crane belonging to National was borrowed as an aid in the actual installation of the monorails, a bridge, and a one-ton crane placed on the bridge.

By the morning of February 26 Lively's job was almost completed. All that remained was to 'plumb' the structure, that is, line it up so that the crane would be cretain to run along the rail in an unimpeded fashion. In addition, it was discovered that lateral bracing of the supporting channels (steel beams running the length of the monorails between the columns) was still necessary, and that the holes for the braces had not all been made. Eight angles (specially shaped pieces of steel) were provided for this bracing job, which involved the drilling of several additional holes in the overhead monorail beam and the bolting of the angles, to 'stiffen' the structure. After extended preliminary discussion, to be further mentioned hereinafter, plaintiff and a co-worker, Albert Mell, Jr., climbed a ladder to the top of the superstructure to perform the drilling. While Mell sat on the beam watching him, plaintiff drilled the first hole without incident. Mell then dismounted from the beam and proceeded to move the ladder to the next section and to procure some additional bolts. Plaintiff, standing on the 7 1/2 inch wide rail, began to drill the second hole. The hole had almost been made when the drill jammed, kicked, and threw him off balance; Wolczak fell, in a slightly tilted position, into one of the tanks.

As set forth in the complaint and the pretrial order, plaintiff's action against Hanson was grounded in the latter's status as general contractor, allegedly supervising the installation of the entire silver-plating operation in National's plant. Hanson was charged with negligence in providing improperly fabricated steel so that 'it became necessary for the plaintiff to expose himself to unnecessary risks and hazards to drill certain holes in the steel'; in failing to provide proper scaffolding; and in failing to coordinate the work so as to avoid hazardous conditions.

National's asserted liability was predicated upon violation of its duty of reasonable care owed to an invitee performing work upon its premises. It was termed negligent in generally failing to provide plaintiff with a safe place in which to work, in neglecting properly to cover the hazardous steel tanks beneath plaintiff's work area, and in failing to provide proper scaffolding and to coordinate the work being done on its property.

The trial court, in dismissing the complaint as to both defendants, found that neither had any control over the plaintiff in the area in which he was working, namely, the superstructure constructed by himself and his employer, Lively. It held that neither National nor Hanson had breached any duty owed to plaintiff under the instant facts and that 'the dangerous condition under which the plaintiff worked was incidental to and arose from the work itself.'

I.

As To Hanson.

The liability of a general contractor to employees of subcontractors performing construction or other work on the premises is founded in part on the assumption that the owner has placed the general contractor in physical control of the job site; by virtue of this control, the general contractor is burdened with a duty similar to that owed by the landowner to business invitees, to exercise reasonable care to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition. Butler v. King, 99 N.H. 150, 106 A.2d 385 (Sup.Ct.1954); Revels v. Southern California Edison Co., 113 Cal.App.2d 673, 248 P.2d 986, 989 (D.Ct.App.1952); Fisher Construction Company v. Riggs, 320 S.W.2d 200, 206 (Tex.Civ.App.1959); cf. Smith v. Henger, 148 Tex. 456, 226 S.W.2d 425, 20 A.L.R.2d 853, 868 (Sup.Ct.1950); Restatement Torts, § 387. In addition, his supervision of or active participation in the manner of work of the subcontractor may result in the imposition of a broader duty of care, premised essentially on the emergence of a sufficient degree of detailed superintendence over the latter's employees as to invoke a legal relationship analagous to that of master-servant. Anderson v. Foley Bros., 110 Minn. 151, 124 N.W. 987 (Sup.Ct.1910); Kuptz v. Ralph Sollitt & Sons Const. Co., 88 F.2d 532, 534 (5 Cir. 1937); Restatement, Agency 2d, §§ 220, 516, 57 C.J.S. Master and Servant § 602, p. 374. See Bergquist v. Penterman, 46 N.J.Super. 74, 85, 134 A.2d 20 (App.Div.), certification denied 25 N.J. 55, 134 A.2d 832 (1957).

Absent control over the job location or direction of the manner in which the delegated tasks are carried out, the general contractor is not liable for injuries to employees of the subcontractor resulting from either the condition to the premises or the manner in which the work is performed. See Annotation, 20 A.L.R.2d 868, at pp. 901--04. Nor is his immunity disturbed by the exercise of merely such general superintendence as is necessary to insure that the subcontractor performs his agreement. Cf. Giroud v. Stryker Transportation Co., 104 N.J.L. 424. 426, 140 A. 305 (E. & A.1928); Majestic Realty Associates, Inc. v. Toti Contracting Co., 54 N.J.Super. 419, 426, 149 A.2d 288 (App.Div.), affirmed 30 N.J. 425, 153 A.2d 321 (1959). Of course, specific instances of direct interference which proximately cause injury to the employees of the subcontractor--such as the furnishing of defective materials (Annotation, supra, 20 A.L.R., at pp. 906--07) or the giving of a single authorized direction thwarting the subcontractor's effort to provide safeguards, Trecartin v. Mahony-Troast Construction Co., 18 N.J.Super. 380, 389, 87 A.2d 349 (App.Div.1952), affirmed 21 N.J. 1, 120 A.2d 733 (1956)--will heap liability upon the shoulders of the general contractor.

Applying these principles to the situation at hand, we are of the firm opinion that Hanson owed no duty towards plaintiff under the circumstances mentioned. Hanson did not--in actuality or by contractual privilege--supervise, direct, or concern itself in any way with the installation of either the tanks or the monorail system. It merely manufactured the tanks and forwarded them to National in conformance with the latter's order. As for the monorail system, complete responsibility for supplying the materials and installing the superstructure was delegated to Lively, the East Coast representative of the American Monorail Company. Hanson neither undertook to coordinate the erection of the system nor furnished plaintiff's employer with equipment for the operation; as far as the record indicates, no representative of Hanson was present at the National plant during the installation of the monorail system. Although reference is made in the testimony to a stipulation, in Hanson's purchase order placed with Lively, to the effect that '* * * the purchaser will move any obstruction that may interfere with the installation * * *,' there is no evidence of any request by Lively to have the metal tanks moved as a precondition to performance of its job.

In short, Hanson, as general contractor, never assumed supervision over the working premises; it delegated both in form and in substance the direction and control of the details of the work and manner of its performance to Lively, a reputable independent contractor; it neither supplied nor agreed to supply any materials to the latter, and did not issue any directives to the Lively personnel during the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
64 cases
  • Ryan v. U.S., Civil Action No. 00-1613(JBS).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. District of New Jersey
    • 11 Diciembre 2002
    ...contractor's employee in the course of his assigned duties." Kandarge, 849 F.Supp. at 310 (quoting Wolczak v. Nat'l Elec. Prods. Corp., 66 N.J.Super. 64, 75, 168 A.2d 412 (App.Div.1961)). The landlord may assume that: the worker, or his superiors, are possessed of sufficient skill to recogn......
  • Dawson v. Bunker Hill Plaza Associates
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court – Appellate Division
    • 10 Abril 1996
    ...to perform." Sanna v. Nat'l Sponge Co., 209 N.J.Super. 60, 67, 506 A.2d 1258 (App.Div.1986) (citing Wolczak v. Nat'l Elec. Prods. Corp., 66 N.J.Super. 64, 75, 168 A.2d 412 (App.Div.1961)). Stated differently, "[t]he landowner is under no duty to protect an employee of an independent contrac......
  • Becker v. Interstate Properties, 76-2520
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • 30 Enero 1978
    ...Marion v. Public Service Elec. and Gas Co., 72 N.J.Super. 146, 178 A.2d 57 (App.Div.1962); Wolczak v. National Electric Products Corp., 66 N.J.Super. 64, 168 A.2d 412 (App.Div.1961); Araujo v. New Jersey Natural Gas Co., 62 N.J.Super. 88, 162 A.2d 299 (App.Div.), cert. denied 33 N.J. 328, 1......
  • Hite v. Maritime Overseas Corporation, Civ. A. No. B-73-CA-354.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Court of Eastern District Texas
    • 16 Agosto 1974
    ...F.2d 770 (1st Cir. 1966); Partin v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 102 N.H. 62, 149 A.2d 860 (1959); Wolczak v. Nat. Elec. Prod. Corp., 66 N.J.Super. 64, 168 A.2d 412 (N.J.Super.1961); Mergel v. Colgate, 41 N.J.Super. 372, 125 A.2d 292 (1956), cert. den. 22 N.J. 453, 126 A.2d 392 (1956);......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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