Search Rutgers Law Library N.J. Court Opinions

1 Tomeo v. Thomas Whitesell Construction Co., Inc. -- rank: 1000

... to the exclusive remedy provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act, N.J.S.A. 34:15-8. Plaintiff was hired in 1988 to install sprinkler systems in ... moved for summary judgment based on the immunity provided in N.J.S.A. 34:15-8. After the motion was denied, bifurcated trials were conducted. At ... of the “intentional wrong” exception to the immunity provided by N.J.S.A. 34:15-8, noting the “substantial certainty” standard adopted in Millison v. E ... analyzing whether immunity is afforded to the employer pursuant to N.J.S.A. 34:15-8. 1. The snow blower is a consumer product; it is ... and obviousness of danger incorporated into the Products Liability Act, N.J.S.A. 34:15-8. (Pp. 16 to 17). 3. Nor can the context prong ... seller of that product under a theory of defective design. N.J.S.A. 34:15-8. (Pp. to 17 to 18). 4. Under the Millison– ...

docket:	a-25-02
court:	njsupreme
decided:	2003-05-22
status:
citation:	176 N.J. 366
Document Size:	69831

2 CHARLES L. BOVE , v. AKPHARMA INC. -- rank: 996

... as the person injured or killed, except for intentional wrong. [N.J.S.A. 34:15-8.] The statutory language of the WCA involving an exception for ...

docket:	a2342-17
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2019-07-11
status:	Published
citation:
Document Size:	65943

3 Hawksby v. DePietro -- rank: 990

... carrying insurance to cover the personal liability of the doctor. N.J.S.A. 34:15-8, which extended immunity under the Act to co employees, was ... that the Court should deny co-employee immunity, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 34:15-8, to company doctors for their negligent treatment of employee-patients ... upon immunity under the New Jersey Workers' Compensation Act (Act), N.J.S.A. 34:15-8, and that the exclusive remedy was to pursue the claim ... a fellow employee, was immune from a tort action under N.J.S.A. 34:15-8. The trial court denied plaintiff's request that the matter ... Dr. DePietro contend in the Law Division that immunity under N.J.S.A. 34:15-8 requires dismissal of the tort action.     Dr. DePietro argues that ... the Law Division based on the fellow-employee immunity under N.J.S.A. 34:15-8, is simply the result of plaintiff's litigation strategy. ...

docket:	a-104-98
court:	njsupreme
decided:	2000-07-25
status:
citation:	165 N.J. 58
Document Size:	59101

4 KRISTIANSEN V. ROBERT W. MORAN, ET AL. -- rank: 951

... of his employment, the Division had exclusive jurisdiction pursuant to N,J,S.A. 34:15-8. That motion was denied on April 16, 1993. The matter ... death claim by virtue of the exclusive remedy provision of N.J.S.A. 34:15-8 of the Act. The trial court denied the motion, reasoning ... of his employment, the Division had exclusive jurisdiction pursuant to N.J.S.A. 34:15-8. That motion was denied on April 16, 1993. The matter ... was shielded from a wrongful death claim by virtue of N.J.S.A. 34:15-8. The trial court denied the motion. It reasoned that because ... those conducting the employer's business during bankruptcy or insolvency. [ N.J.S.A. 34:15-8.]     The same statute creates a fellow-servant defense in the ... as the person injured or killed, except for intentional wrong. [ N.J.S.A. 34:15-8.]     Our analysis of whether the Superior Court had concurrent ...

docket:	a-27-97
court:	njsupreme
decided:	1998-03-12
status:
citation:	153 N.J. 298
Document Size:	61869

5 Crippen v. Central Jersey Concrete Pipe Company -- rank: 945

... to the exclusive remedy provision of the Workers' Compensation Act, N.J.S.A. 34:15-8. On June 6, 1998, the decedent was working as a ... wanton actions, thus falling within the intentional wrong exception to N.J.S.A. 34:15-8, commonly referred to as the exclusive remedy provision. Defendant moved ... discussed the meaning of "intentional wrong," as referred to in N.J.S.A. 34:15-8, and it determined that "the mere knowledge and appreciation of ... employer's act to lose the cloak of immunity under N.J.S.A. 34:15-8, both the conduct and context prongs established in Millison must ... under the exclusive remedy provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act, N.J.S.A. 34:15-8. Based on this Court’s holding in Millison v. E ... result, the claim falls within the intentional wrong exception to N.J.S.A. 34:15-8, commonly referred to as the “exclusive remedy provision,” provides: ...

docket:	a-5-02
court:	njsupreme
decided:	2003-05-22
status:
citation:	176 N.J. 397
Document Size:	73174

6 FOURNIER TRUCKING, INC v. NEW JERSEY MANUFACTURERS INSURANCE COMPANY -- rank: 942

... barred from any alternative means of recovery, including tort lawsuits. N.J.S.A. 34:15- -8. The WCA is recognized as 'remedial social legislation' that 'should ...

docket:	a1353-18
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2020-04-09
status:	Unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	89444

7 OLVIN LEONEL RODRIGUEZ ORTIZ v. INTERSTATE RACKING SHELVING, II, INC. -- rank: 942

... wrong to surmount the Workers' Compensation Act's exclusivity provision, N.J.S.A. 34:15-8. Later, on cross-motions for summary judgment in the coverage ... wrong' exception to the Workers' Compensation Act's exclusivity provision, N.J.S.A. 34:15-8.2 The court concluded that Rodriguez- Ortiz failed to prove ... employer's act to lose the cloak of immunity of N.J.S.A. 34:15-8, two conditions must be satisfied: (1) the employer must know ... any and all intentional wrongs within the exception allowed by N.J.S.A. 34:15-8 including but not limited to, bodily injury caused or aggravated ... the employer's negligence is responsible for the injury, see N.J.S.A. 34:15-8 (stating '[s]uch agreement shall be a surrender . . . of . . . rights ... East, 442 N.J. Super. 80, 99 (App. Div. 2015), ' N.J.S.A. 34:15-8 directs that an employer may not be sued by ...

docket:	a1614-19
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2021-09-03
status:	Unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	49709

8 JEFFREY McDANIEL v. MAN WAI LEE -- rank: 938

... In this multi-vehicle auto negligence action, we examine whether N.J.S.A. 34:15-8, the fellow-servant provision of the Workers' Compensation Act (also ... respective actions against Lee and PP Trucking. Plaintiff, relying on N.J.S.A. 34:15-8 of the Act, asserts the third-party suit must be ... 394 N.J. Super. 179 , 190 (App. Div. 2007) (citing N.J.S.A. 34:15-8). See also Basil , supra , 193 N.J. at 55. "Fundamental ... Indus., Inc. , 103 N.J. 177 , 183 (1986). See also N.J.S.A. 34:15-8. 6 The statute's exclusivity bar also prohibits an injured ... are in the same employ, except for intentional wrongs"). Specifically, N.J.S.A. 34:15-8 provides, in pertinent part, "a person shall not be liable ... right to "any other method, form or amount of compensation," N.J.S.A. 34:15-8, an employer may not be liable in tort to ...

docket:	a5900-09
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2011-04-27
status:	published
citation:	419 N.J. Super. 482 17 A.3d 816
Document Size:	50823

9 NICKEMEA WHITFIELD v. BONANNO REAL ESTATE GROUP -- rank: 935

... in that partnership? We conclude that the immunity provided by N.J.S.A. 34:15-8 does not bar plaintiff's third-party action against the ... TWF argued that it was immune from suit pursuant to N.J.S.A. 34:15-8 because "the immunities . . . that . . . the partner has pass as well ... rights to any other method, form or amount of compensation." N.J.S.A. 34:15-8. N.J.S.A. 34:15-8 immunizes the employer and co-employees of the injured worker ... is entitled to the immunity bestowed upon Time Warner by N.J.S.A. 34:15-8 "because . . . partners share each others' and the partnership's liabilities ... this state, several cases have addressed the immunity provided by N.J.S.A. 34:15-8 in the context of potential third-party tort liability ...

docket:	a2830-09
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2011-05-12
status:	published
citation:	419 N.J. Super. 547 17 A.3d 855
Document Size:	68642

10 Wade Stancil v. ACE USA -- rank: 917

... 91-92 (rejecting assertion that intentional act exception found in N.J.S.A. 34:15-8 applied to act of carrier); see Dunlevy v. Kemper Ins ... intentional-conduct exception provided for in the Workers’ Compensation Act, N.J.S.A. 34:15-8 – - an employee who suffered a work-related injury has ... N.J. 602 , 605 (2002).] Through its explicit exclusivity provision, N.J.S.A. 34:15-8, the Act has operated to create precisely the sort of ... are ones grounded squarely on the statutory scheme itself, see N.J.S.A. 34:15-8, and do not arise from remedies found more generally in ... in which the employer commits an “intentional wrong.” N.J.S.A. 34:15-8. In essence, the Act is a social compact, “an ... plaintiff had argued that the Act’s intentional tort exception, N.J.S.A. 34:15-8, would permit relief outside of the Act for an ...

docket:	A-112-10
court:	NJ Supreme Court
decided:	2012-08-01
status:
citation:	211 N.J. 276 48 A.3d 991
Document Size:	95466

11 DIONICIO RODRIGUEZ v. SHELBOURNE SPRING, LLC -- rank: 914

... any and all intentional wrongs within the exception allowed by N.J.S.A. 34:15-8[1] including but not limited to, bodily injury caused or ... Law Division against SIR and other companies and fictitiously 1 N.J.S.A. 34:15-8 precludes a person 'in the same employ as' the workers ... of Educ., 246 N.J. 507, 514-15 (2021) (quoting N.J.S.A. 34:15-8). A-2079-22 6 named parties seeking damages for his ... the employer's negligence is responsible for the injury. See N.J.S.A. 34:15-8 (stating '[s]uch agreement shall be a surrender . . . of . . . rights ... compensation or determination thereof than as provided in this article'). ' N.J.S.A. 34:15-8 directs that an employer may not be sued by an ... to the Compensation Act's exclusivity, as set forth in N.J.S.A. 34:15-8, for an injury caused by an employer's intentional ...

docket:	a2079-22
court:	NJ Superior Court Appellate Division
decided:	2023-12-22
status:	Unpublished
citation:
Document Size:	46909

12 Mary Richter v. Oakland Board of Education -- rank: 908

... the person injured or killed, except for intentional wrong.” N.J.S.A. 34:15-8. The LAD’s worthy purpose is no less than eradication ... for bodily injuries or their equivalent, it is barred under N.J.S.A. 34:15-8 unless she proves that defendants engaged in an intentional wrong ... the exclusive remedy provisions of the Workers Compensation Act (WCA), N.J.S.A. 34:15-8? 2. Must an employee seeking recovery for bodily injuries under ... that the employer engaged in an intentional wrong pursuant to N.J.S.A. 34:15- 8? We also granted the motions of Rutgers University, the New ... as the person injured or killed, except for intentional wrong. [N.J.S.A. 34:15-8.] In the century since the enactment of the WCA, we ...

docket:	a-23-19
court:	NJ Supreme Court
decided:	2021-06-08
status:
citation:
Document Size:	97020

13 SHELDON NORWOOD v. GENESIS LOGISTICS, INC., et al. -- rank: 902

... s claims were barred by the exclusive remedy provision in N.J.S.A. 34:15-8. In their statement of material facts, Genesis asserted, among other ... assault, plaintiff's claims against them also were barred by N.J.S.A. 34:15-8. Plaintiff opposed the motions. In a certification dated May 8 ... Counsel stated that while the workers' compensation exclusivity bar in N.J.S.A. 34:15-8 may require dismissal of the first three counts of the ... the first three counts of the complaint were barred by N.J.S.A. 34:15-8 and should be dismissed. Counsel also did not oppose dismissal ... the judge correctly found that the "intentional wrong" exception in N.J.S.A. 34:15-8 does not apply to plaintiff's claims. In Millison v ... whether particular claims come within the "intentional wrong" exception under N.J.S.A. 34:15-8. The plaintiff must prove that his or her employer ...

docket:	a5674-05
court:	njappellate
decided:	2007-09-25
status:	unpublished
citation:	*CITE_PENDING*
Document Size:	48603

14 /usr/local/share/www/libweb/collections/courts/appellate/a4067-18.opn.html -- rank: 896

... employees harmed Gonzalez with intentional wrongs within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 34:15-8, constituting an exception to the WCA's bar to recovery ... court concluded Laumar's third-party claims were barred by N.J.S.A. 34:15-8 because the acts alleged by Laumar, even if true, do ... an employer do not fall within the exception created by N.J.S.A. 34:15-8 when an 1 Laumar also alleged Guiliano failed to obtain ... and shall bind the employee . . . as well as the employer . . . . [N.J.S.A. 34:15-8.] Recovery under the WCA is 'the exclusive remedy for an ... N.J. 177, 184 (1986), our Supreme Court held that N.J.S.A. 34:15-8 precludes a third-party tortfeasor from seeking statutory or common ... as the person injured or killed, except for intentional wrong. [ N.J.S.A. 34:15-8 (emphasis added).] Although this provision makes 'clear that a ...

docket:
court:
decided:
status:
citation:
Document Size:	25564

15 Estate of Myroslava Kotsovska v. Saul Liebman -- rank: 890

... independent contractor after defendant raised the exclusive remedy defense under N.J.S.A. 34:15-8. Moreover, petitioner did not file a petition for workers’ compensation ... affirmative defense the exclusive remedy provision of the Compensation Act, N.J.S.A. 34:15-8. Although the Superior Court determined that it had jurisdiction to ... of determining whether the Compensation Act’s exclusive remedy provision, N.J.S.A. 34:15-8, applies. The trial court denied the motion. After discovery concluded ... employee’s death shall bind the employee’s personal representatives. [ N.J.S.A. 34:15-8.] This provision is intended to ensure that workers’ compensation provides ... N.J. 205 , 207 (1970) (“The elective provisions of [ N.J.S.A. 34:15-8] were only intended to deny employees their traditional common law ... independent contractor after Liebman raised the exclusive remedy defense under N.J.S.A. 34:15-8. Moreover, petitioner did not file a petition for workers’ ...

docket:	A-89-13
court:	NJ Supreme Court
decided:	2015-06-11
status:
citation:	221 N.J. 568 116 A.3d 1
Document Size:	108692