McDaniel v. Man Wai Lee
17 A.3d 816
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2011Background
- Plaintiff Jeffrey McDaniel, employed by Sprint/Nextel, was injured in a work-related multi-vehicle collision on Raymond Boulevard, Newark, when co-worker Devers was rear-ended by a tractor-trailer driven by defendant Lee, causing Devers to hit McDaniel.
- Devers and McDaniel each filed separate workers' compensation petitions; Devers also filed a third-party complaint against Lee and PP Trucking seeking indemnification and contribution for McDaniel's injuries.
- McDaniel moved to dismiss Lee's third-party complaint as frivolous and sought sanctions; Lee cross-moved to disqualify McDaniel's counsel due to a claimed conflict of interest.
- The trial court denied McDaniel's motions without prejudice; on appeal, the Appellate Division granted some relief and partially addressed the conflict and sanctions.
- The central question is whether N.J.S.A. 34:15-8 (the fellow-servant immunity) bars a third-party action by a tortfeasor against a co-worker and whether counsel may represent both McDaniel and Devers given potential conflicts.
- The court eventually held that the co-worker Devers is immune from suit and that Lee's third-party claim against Devers must be dismissed, while allowing dual representation of McDaniel and Devers with potential withdrawal if future conflicts arise.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does 34:15-8 bar Lee's third-party claim against Devers? | McDaniel argues immunity applies to co-workers; third-party claims against Devers are barred. | Lee contends third-party indemnification/contribution is permissible against a negligent co-worker. | Yes; Devers is immune, and the third-party claim must be dismissed. |
| Does co-worker immunity apply when parties are in separate vehicles? | Immunity should apply as the injury arose from a work-related incident involving co-employees. | Separation of vehicles removes the co-worker immunity from the third-party claim. | Yes; immunity applies regardless of separate vehicles; Devers remains immune. |
| May counsel represent both McDaniel and Devers given potential conflicts? | Dual representation creates a conflict since one party seeks to sue a co-worker and the other is a co-worker. | Different plaintiffs with non-adverse interests may be represented by the same attorney; conflict may not exist. | Dual representation acceptable initially; if future adverse interests arise, withdrawal is required. |
| Should sanctions be imposed under Rule 1:4-8 for Lee's third-party filing? | Lee's third-party action is frivolous and warrants sanctions. | There was legal uncertainty; sanctions should not be imposed for a reasonably arguable position. | Sanctions denied; court did not abuse its discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ramos v. Browning-Ferris Indus., Inc., 103 N.J. 177 (1986) (exclusive remedy bars employer's tort liability; not a joint tortfeasor)
- Stephenson v. R.A. Jones & Co., 103 N.J. 194 (1986) (employer not liable to third-party for contribution when solely liable under workers' comp)
- Port Authority of New York & New Jersey v. Honeywell Protective Services, Honeywell, Inc., 222 N.J. Super. 11 (App.Div. 1987) (third-party tortfeasor may not obtain contribution from employer)
- Basil v. Wolf, 193 N.J. 38 (2007) (Workers' compensation exclusive remedy principle)
- Kane v. Hartz Mountain Indus., 278 N.J. Super. 129 (App.Div. 1994) (no contractual indemnity exception to workers' comp immunity in third-party claims)
- Anderson v. A.J. Friedman Supply Co., Inc., 416 N.J. Super. 46 (App.Div. 2010) (dual liabilities and allocation not required when employer immunity applies)
- Ahammed v. Logandro, 394 N.J. Super. 179 (App.Div. 2007) (co-worker immune from suit for conduct in the course of employment; indemnification not allowed)
- Barone v. Harra, 77 N.J. 276 (1978) (immunity extends to fellow-employees in compensable actions)