Van Dunk v. Reckson Associates Realty Corp.
210 N.J. 449
| N.J. | 2012Background
- Van Dunk sustained severe trench-collapse injuries while working on a James Construction site; Reckson contracted with James to perform site prep.
- Key was the on-site OSHA-competent person; trench exceeded five feet and lacked proper protective systems.
- OSHA found a willful violation; James paid a reduced settlement after negotiations.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for defendants; Appellate Division reversed, allowing an intentional-wrong claim to proceed.
- Supreme Court reversed Appellate Division, holding the workers' compensation exclusivity remains bars the common-law claim, even with OSHA willfulness involved.
- Court analyzes Millison two-prong test (conduct and context) and finds neither prong satisfied under the totality of circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether OSHA willful violation suffices to overcome the Act | Van Dunk argues willfulness supports intentional wrong | James contends willfulness alone is not dispositive | Willful OSHA finding not dispositive; need Millison prongs |
| Whether the conduct prong shows substantial certainty | Key's knowledge and actions show intentional disregard | Actions were poor judgment, not virtual certainty of injury | Conduct prong not satisfied; no intentional wrong |
| Whether the context prong shows the injury is beyond industrial life | Accident occurred under dangerous conditions beyond ordinary life of work | Not beyond what legislature contemplated; not an exceptional context | Context prong not satisfied; exclusivity applies |
| Whether the exclusivity bar can be overcome by gross negligence or reckless conduct | Gross negligence may overcome bar | Exclusivity remains unless intentional wrong proven | Not overcome; exclusivity prevails |
Key Cases Cited
- Millison v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 101 N.J. 161, 501 A.2d 505 (1985) (established substantial-certainty standard two-prong test)
- Laidlow v. Hariton Machinery Co., 170 N.J. 602, 790 A.2d 884 (2002) (addressed safety-device removal and deception; contextual factors)
- Mull v. Zeta Consumer Products, 176 N.J. 385, 823 A.2d 782 (2003) (OSHA violations among factors; held actionable under Millison)
- Tomeo v. Thomas Whitesell Construction Co., 176 N.J. 366, 823 A.2d 769 (2003) (companion Tomeo cases refining conduct/context analysis)
- Crippen v. Central Jersey Concrete Pipe Co., 176 N.J. 397, 823 A.2d 789 (2003) (demonstrated when context supports intentional wrong)