JOHN DUTCHER VS. PEDRO PEDEIRO(L-4321-15, MIDDLESEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-1088-16T3
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Nov 22, 2017Background
- Plaintiff John Dutcher, an off-duty Woodbridge police officer, was injured while directing traffic at a road‑milling construction site where Black Rock Enterprises performed work; Black Rock employee Pedeiro was driving the vehicle that struck him.
- Black Rock contracted with Middlesex County and arranged with the Township of Woodbridge to obtain “Extra Duty” police officers; Dutcher was assigned to Black Rock’s site per that request.
- Black Rock submitted detailed requests specifying number of officers, times, locations, and required duties; Dutcher checked in with and received directions from Black Rock supervisors and a foreman while on site.
- Black Rock paid the Township invoices for Dutcher’s hours (the Township then paid Dutcher); Black Rock’s third‑party administrator treated the matter as dual employment with Black Rock responsible for 50% of compensation costs.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment ten months after suit; plaintiff did not respond to defendants’ statement of material facts, which were therefore deemed admitted; the trial court granted summary judgment finding Dutcher was Black Rock’s special employee and that Workers’ Compensation exclusivity barred his tort claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dutcher was a "special employee" of Black Rock (creating dual employment and invoking WC exclusivity) | Dutcher argued the facts did not establish special employment; disputed Black Rock’s statements about workers’ comp payment | Black Rock argued it controlled the work details, directed Dutcher, could discontinue/recall him, and paid via Township invoices — satisfying special‑employee factors | Court held Dutcher was a special employee of Black Rock; WC recovery from Township bars his tort suit against Black Rock |
| Whether payment through the Township defeats the “special employer pays wages” factor | Dutcher argued indirect payment (Black Rock → Township → Dutcher) does not show Black Rock paid wages | Black Rock argued indirect payment suffices and invoices showed officers weren’t paid until Black Rock paid the invoice | Court held indirect payment satisfied the wages factor for special employment |
| Whether summary judgment was premature because discovery wasn’t complete | Dutcher argued the court decided before depositions and before discovery closed; defendants hadn’t produced Township’s position on employment classification | Black Rock argued the unrefuted factual record supported summary judgment and Dutcher failed to respond to and thus admit material facts | Court found no reversible procedural error; plaintiff could have and did not refute defendants’ facts; summary judgment appropriate |
| Whether alleged denials by Black Rock in workers’ compensation proceedings are material | Dutcher pointed to Black Rock’s alleged denial of WC contribution as relevant | Black Rock maintained the WC outcome and dual‑employment assessment control the tort exclusivity question | Court held such disputes over contribution are immaterial; recovery from one employer bars tort suit against the other |
Key Cases Cited
- Blessing v. T. Shriver & Co., 94 N.J. Super. 426 (App. Div. 1967) (sets out factors for special‑employment/special‑employer analysis)
- Hanisko v. Billy Casper Golf Mgmt., 437 N.J. Super. 349 (App. Div. 2014) (workers’ compensation recovery from one employer bars tort against another employer where dual employment exists)
- Walrond v. Cnty. of Somerset, 382 N.J. Super. 227 (App. Div. 2006) (no single Blessing factor is dispositive; control is most significant)
- Volb v. G.E. Capital Corp., 139 N.J. 110 (1995) (discusses significance of employer control in dual‑employment inquiries)
- Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520 (1995) (summary judgment standard guidance)
- Bhagat v. Bhagat, 217 N.J. 22 (2014) (summary judgment standard; review of competent evidential materials)
- Domanoski v. Borough of Fanwood, 237 N.J. Super. 452 (App. Div. 1989) (off‑duty officer assigned to private interest can constitute dual employment)
- Kelly v. Geriatric & Med. Servs., Inc., 287 N.J. Super. 567 (App. Div. 1996) (indirect payment to employee via intermediary can support finding of special employment)