We affirm the judgment of the Appellate Division substantially for the reasons set forth in the opinion below, 254 N. J.Super. 310, 603 A. 2d 521 (1992). We agree that the Statement that accompanies the Senate Committee’s amendments to S. 2703, L. 1987, c. 325 concerning governmental enforcement actions did not otherwise modify or alter the provisions of N.J.S.A. 2A:15-5.3d permitting joint and several recovery in private “environmental tort actions.” We add only the observation that this understanding of the statute will not create a limitless exception to the reforms intended by these 1987 amendments to the Comparative Negligence Act that modified theretofore-unrestricted joint liability in tort litigation.
Because the issue is not before us, the precise limits of the statutory phraseology must necessarily await resolution in future litigation. We surmise, however, that the claim of a homemaker who cuts his hand on a defective can of oven cleaner and has the oven cleaner solution seep into the lacerated hand is not excepted from the modified comparative-negligence provisions of the act when the homemaker sues the manufacturer, distributor, or retailer of the oven cleaner. Even though the oven cleaner contains methylene chloride “the cause *396 of the damages” is not “the negligent manufacture, use, disposal, handling, storage or treatment of hazardous or toxic substances,” as described in N.J.S.A. 2A:15-5.3f(l), but rather the defective can. Another such example might be that of a defective gasoline tank on a motorcycle. Although the gasoline (a toxic or hazardous substance) is the accelerant that leads to a fire injuring the driver, we doubt that the Legislature would have such a case in mind as an “environmental tort.”
For affirmance — Chief Justice WILENTZ and Justices CLIFFORD, HANDLER, POLLOCK, O’HERN, GARIBALDI and STEIN — 7.
Opposed — N one.