Zaza v. Marquess and Nell, Inc.
| Decision Date | 09 May 1996 |
| Citation | 675 A.2d 620,144 N.J. 34 |
| Parties | , Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 14,628 Gerardo ZAZA and Frances Zaza, His Wife, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. MARQUESS AND NELL, INC., a Corporation d/b in New Jersey; Calgon Carbon Company, a Company d/b in New Jersey; William Merz; and Brennan Company, Inc., a Company d/b in New Jersey, Defendants, and International Sheet Metal & Plate Mfg., Inc., a New Jersey Corporation, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
John J. Scanlon, New Providence, for appellant (Scanlon & Heim, attorneys).
Alfred D. Alvarez, Woodbridge, for respondents (Mr. Alvarez, attorney; Mr. Alvarez and Andrew S. Maza, on the brief).
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
This appeal presents the question of whether under the Products Liability Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:58C-1 to -7, a component part fabricator that builds a system component in accordance with the specifications of the owner, which component is not dangerous until it is integrated into the larger system, can be held strictly liable to an injured employee for the failure of the owner, installer-assembler, and training consultant to install safety devices and provide warnings. The Appellate Division found that such a fabricator could be held strictly liable. We now reverse.
On January 28, 1990, plaintiff Gerardo Zaza 1, an employee of Maxwell House Coffee (Maxwell House), a division of General Foods Manufacturing Corporation, discovered a clog in a quench tank located in the Hoboken plant. While working to repair the quench tank, hot molten water and carbon within the quench tank overflowed and landed on plaintiff's back, arms and upper extremities, causing second degree burns over twenty-one percent of plaintiff's body.
The quench tank is an integral part of a large, complex manufacturing process--the Maxwell House trecar-carbon regeneration system--which is used to produce decaffeinated coffee beans. The system contains a multiple hearth furnace, a quench tank, and numerous pipes, watering screws, scrubbers and fans. All of those parts must be fully integrated and assembled in order to create a properly working trecar-carbon regeneration system. It is a two-fold system. In the top portion of the system, the ultimate coffee product is made, and a byproduct (carbon) is reclaimed in the lower portion. The quench tank is located in the lower portion where the carbon regeneration process takes place. After the basic coffee product has been made in the top portion, the carbon, which has been heated in the multiple hearth furnace to 1700 degrees fahrenheit, leaves the furnace through a large tube and enters the quench tank. At the same time the molten carbon enters the quench tank, cool water is pumped into the quench tank at the rate of twenty-two gallons per minute. The superheated carbon-water mixture moves through the quench tank for approximately thirty minutes, then exits the tank through two pipelines, and finally comes to rest in separate storage tanks where it is kept for future processing.
The initial designs for the quench tank were prepared by Maxwell House and were submitted to the engineering firm of Marquess and Nell, Inc., (Marquess) who prepared the final design plans. Marquess contracted with defendant International Sheet Metal & Plate Mfg., Inc. (International) for a fabricated quench tank. Maxwell House hired Brennan Company, Inc. (Brennan) to assemble and integrate the trecar-carbon regeneration system. Calgon Carbon Company (Calgon) was hired to prepare training materials on how to operate the system and to educate Maxwell House employees in the use of the trecar-carbon regeneration system. William J. Merz, an engineer employed by Calgon, conducted a training session for Maxwell House employees on how to use the trecar-carbon regeneration system, including the quench tank. Plaintiff attended the training session.
The specifications on which defendant bid for the quench tank did not require that the fabricator prepare or install any safety devices. Rather, the specifications called for the fabricator to cut holes for the safety devices. The quench tank fabricated by defendant is best described as a stainless steel tank with holes in it. The tank also contains six flanges, which are devices used to hold pipes in place. The quench tank was sold to Maxwell for $7,400. When it was delivered to Maxwell House, professional installers had to connect water ingress piping, carbon extrusion piping and water discharge piping before it could be made operational.
The final plans and specifications for the trecar-carbon regeneration system incorporated three safety devices designed to avoid an overflow of the molten fluid out of the quench tank. These safety devices were to be installed by Maxwell House and Brennan. The devices included a spectacle shut-off valve, a high-level fluid sensor, and an overflow pipe. The spectacle shut-off valve was designed to stop the flow of the molten carbon from leaving the hearth furnace and entering the quench tank whenever personnel were working on the quench tank or associated piping. It was supposed to be located in the chute between the hearth furnace and the quench tank. The high-level fluid sensor was designed to trigger an alarm and light whenever the fluid level in the quench tank reached a dangerous level. The overflow pipe was to be located eight inches below the top of the quench tank and was designed to divert the fluids within the quench tank through a piping system to another location away from the user if the fluids reached a high level within the tank. It is uncontroverted that the installation of the overflow pipe would have prevented the quench tank from pouring out its molten contents on plaintiff.
Although all three safety devices were included in the design plans prepared by Marquess, none was actually in operation at the time plaintiff sustained his injuries. Brennan, the installer, claims that its function was to install and integrate the quench tank into the system based on the plans provided to it by Maxwell House, that Maxwell House decided to omit the safety devices recommended by Marquess, and that Maxwell House approved the installation. Maxwell House's decision to omit the safety devices appears to have been deliberate. Although the spectacle shut-off valve was on site and available when the tank was being installed, Maxwell House chose not to install it. When an engineer informed Maxwell House of the omission, the company chose to disregard the advice.
In June 1991, plaintiff filed this action against Marquess, Calgon, William J. Merz, Brennan, and International. The complaint against International alleged that strict liability should be imposed because the quench tank was defectively designed and lacked adequate warnings.
Motions for summary judgment were filed by Marquess, Calgon, its employee William J. Merz, and International. Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment, opposed defendants' motions for summary judgment and simultaneously cross-motioned for summary judgment as to defendants Marquess and International.
During oral argument on the motions for summary judgment, the trial court attempted to sort out the responsibilities of the designer (Marquess), fabricator (International), training consultant (Calgon) and installer-assembler (Brennan). With respect to International's legal responsibility, the court found that:
[Defendant] doesn't create the spectacle shutoff system, the high liquid sensor device, or the overflow pipe system. He tells me he's the fabricator who makes the holes for them.... And here's a sheet metal guy who prepares pieces of sheet metal that he submits to an installer who puts them together at the site, and he's got all the holes in them. And you're [plaintiff's counsel] saying that he's got a non-delegable duty to the consumer or to the injured party to see to it that the installer puts it in, the manufacturer install his sheet metal properly before it is functional; is that what you're saying?
In granting International's motion for summary judgment, the court reasoned:
With respect to Defendant International, the colloquy that we've had, the discussion we've had on the record is very enlightening and illuminating because it does not appear that the manufacturer of sheet metal that is not the manufacturer of an integrated machine should be held to the same degree of responsibility that one who manufactures a total machine and that machine when it's put into the stream of commerce creates injury should be held to. The standard for an individual who creates a component part of a machine is whether or not they have properly manufactured that component part. The plaintiff's expert does not indicate that any part of the sheet metal itself, the work done by International caused this unit to be used without the proper safety devices. Therefore, I don't find that there is any material issue of fact with respect to the work that was done by International. Therefore, the motion for the Summary Judgment is granted with respect to International.
At a hearing on a motion for reconsideration, the trial court further elaborated on its rationale for granting International's motion for summary judgment. With respect to the design defect, the court opined:
It was uncontroverted that International Plate Metal did do whatever design they were required to perform, whatever fabricating of the holes and cutouts that were required in the specifications that were given to them by Ma[r]quess & Nell, the designer. There was never any suggestion that International Sheet Metal & Plate Manufacturer was responsible for supervision of the installation. They merely had to do their work and thereafter others were required to install all of the pipes and the safety devices, and the fittings, and the sealants that were necessary to make this skeleton a viable component in this overall unit.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ramos v. Brenntag Specialties, Inc.
...supplied by the defendant after the tank had been integrated into the employer's manufacturing system. (Zaza v. Marquess and Nell, Inc. (1996) 144 N.J. 34, 42, 675 A.2d 620, 624.) The appellate court concluded that the component parts doctrine shielded the defendant from liability, reasonin......
-
Yarchak v. Trek Bicycle Corp.
...cautioning users about the product's alleged propensity to cause erectile dysfunction in male riders. See Zaza v. Marquess and Nell, Inc., 144 N.J. 34, 57, 675 A.2d 620 (1996) ("A failure to warn, or failure to warn adequately, [about the hidden or latent dangers attendant to the foreseeabl......
-
Whelan v. Armstrong Int'l Inc.
...case is no different, whether the action is considered under the PLA or our common law jurisprudence. See Zaza v. Marquess & Nell, Inc., 144 N.J. 34, 49, 675 A.2d 620 (1996) ("[U]nder the [PLA], as under the common law, the ultimate question to be resolved in ... failure-to-warn cases is wh......
-
Green v. General Motors Corp.
...time of an accident. Rather, it occurs when a defective product is placed into the stream of commerce. See Zaza v. Marquess & Nell, Inc., 144 N.J. 34, 48-49, 675 A.2d 620 (1996), and the cases cited therein. One of the differences between the causes of action for strict liability, negligenc......
-
Beyond Workers' Compensation: Workplace Comparative Fault & Third-party Claims
...Bollegraaf Appingedam BV, 667 A.2d 1111, 1115-16 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1995). [7]. See, e.g., Zaza v. Marquess & Nell, Inc., 675 A.2d 620, 634 (N.J. 1996). [8]. See, e.g., Cintrone v. Hertz Truck Leasing & Rental Serv., 212 A.2d 769, 781 (N.J. 1965). [9]. See, e.g., Michalko v. Cooke C......
-
Restatement Third, Torts: Products Liability; what hath the ALI wrought?
...to strict liability standard, whereas design defects would be subjected to risk-utility standard). * Zaza v. Marquess and Nell Inc., 675 A.2d 620, 629 (N.J. 1996) (citing Section 10, Comment a of Tentative Draft No. 3 for proposition that component part manufacturer generally is not liable ......
-
Amazon's Invincibility: the Effect of Defective Third-party Vendors' Products on Amazon
...Products Liability Act of 1978).48. See Sinclair v. Merck & Co., 948 A.2d 587, 593 (N.J. 2008) (quoting Zaza v. Marquess & Nell, Inc., 675 A.2d 620, 627 (N.J. 1996)) (explaining the New Jersey legislature's intention for enacting the Products Liability Act).49. See Roberts v. Rich Foods, In......
-
Will Florida subscribe to the component seller doctrine? "The Buck Stops Here" section 5 of the Restatement (Third) of Torts: products liability.
...by [section] 5. * Early Application of [section] 5 One of the first cases to apply [section] 5 was Zaza v. Marquess & Nell, Inc., 675 A.2d 620 (N.J. 1996). In Zaza, the plaintiff sued a sheet metal fabricator that had manufactured a quench tank to requested specifications calling for th......