Tarabokia v. Structure Tone
429 N.J. Super. 103
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2012Background
- Tarabokia, an electrical worker employed by Hatzel & Buehler (H&B), sustained bilateral wrist injuries from repetitive use of a powder-actuated tool (Hilti DX351) while installing ceiling anchors for lighting on a Novo Nordisk project.
- Structure Tone was the general contractor; H&B subcontracted electrical work. The contract form was AIA-based and did not create a direct contract between Structure Tone and the subcontractor; work orders governed the relationship.
- SSMP required by Structure Tone allocated limited safety responsibilities to subcontractors, with each subcontractor responsible for its own safety programs and compliance; Structure Tone did not direct the actual performance by subcontractors.
- Plaintiff trained by Hilti and attended weekly H&B safety meetings; he used the DX351 with an extension pole and did not wear anti-vibration gloves during work from March 2008; his injuries appeared after weeks of repetitive use.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Structure Tone, and on de novo review the appellate court affirmed, holding no duty of care owed by the general contractor to protect the subcontractor employee absent foreseeability or control of means and methods; OSHA non-compliance alone does not establish a duty.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a general contractor owes a duty to safeguard a subcontractor employee. | Tarabokia argues Structure Tone’s control or foreseeability creates a duty to protect. | Structure Tone contends it did not control means/methods and had limited supervision. | No duty; lack of control and unforeseeable, latent injury. |
| Whether the SSMP or contractual setup creates a duty to supervise subcontractor safety. | SSMP shows overarching safety responsibility; defendant should oversee. | SSMP states subcontractors bear safety responsibility; contractor not liable for subcontractor practices. | No duty based on SSMP alone; responsibility rests with subcontractors. |
| Whether OSHA violations by Structure Tone establish a tort duty of care. | Noncompliance signals a duty to provide PPE and safe methods. | OSHA violations do not automatically create a tort duty; must be combined with other factors. | OSHA non-compliance does not alone create a duty. |
| Whether foreseeability of a latent, cumulative injury supports a general contractor’s duty. | Latency and repetitive use make harm foreseeable. | No actual or constructive knowledge of user’s tool use or injury risk; harm is latent. | Foreseeability insufficient to create duty under these facts. |
| Whether there was a contractual pathway to impose duty to supervise safety. | Contractual structure implied safety oversight by Structure Tone. | No direct contract with subcontractor; duty not imposed through contract. | No basis to impose duty from contract alone; no control over means and methods. |
Key Cases Cited
- Alloway v. Bradlees, Inc., 157 N.J. 221 (N.J. 1999) (foreseeability, relationship, and control factors for duty evaluation)
- Carvalho v. Toll Brothers and Developers, 143 N.J. 565 (N.J. 1996) (engineer duty based on foreseeability and contractual involvement)
- Muhammad v. N.J. Transit, 176 N.J. 185 (N.J. 2003) (broad immunity vs. exceptions for control of manner and means)
- Majestic Realty Assocs., Inc. v. Toti Contracting Co., 30 N.J. 425 (N.J. 1959) (nuisance/per se and control-based exceptions to general immunity)
- Costa v. Gaccione, 408 N.J. Super. 362 (N.J. App. Div. 2009) (OSHA standards as a factor in duty analysis)