WILMER HALL v. ROCCO FANTICONE, D & P LEASING, INC., and REDI-SPACE, AND CHEMICAL TRANSPORT, INC.

Plaintiff Wilmer Hall filed his complaint alleging that, on January 10, 1994, during the course of his employment, he was seriously injured when he slipped and fell on a metal step as he exited from an elevated office trailer situated at 184 Doremus Avenue in Newark (the premises). The premises were leased by CTI from defendant Rocco Fanticone . The office trailer was leased by CTI from defendant Redi-Space. Plaintiff claimed he worked for CTI as a tractor trailer driver hauling chemicals and hazardous materials. He testified he believed he was employed solely by CTI because his "tractor" bore the name of CTI. The record is unclear as to whether CTI or D&P owned the trailer portion of the tractor trailer, but the truck portion was registered to D&P at 184 Doremus Avenue in Newark and leased to CTI. Plaintiff sued Fanticone , the owner of the premises; Redi-Space, the owner and lessor of the office trailer; and D&P, the registered owner of the tractors leased to CTI, naming CTI as a defendant for discovery purposes. After the accident, plaintiff recovered workers' compensation benefits from CTI for the injuries he sustained in the fall. In April 1994, CTI filed a voluntary petition in bankruptcy. Prior to trial, summary judgment was granted in favor of Fanticone , the owner of the premises, dismissing him from the case. D&P's motion for summary judgment was denied due to purported factual issues concerning whether plaintiff's common law negligence action should be barred because D&P was plaintiff's employer. D&P renewed its motion both before trial and at the close of plaintiff's case but was not successful in obtaining a dismissal of the complaint. Reconsideration motions were also rejected.

A jury returned a no cause of action verdict in favor of Redi-Space, the lessor of the office trailer, but found D&P 100% liable due to its negligence. Following the trial, D&P moved for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, again arguing the Workers' Compensation Act barred plaintiff from recovering against it. Despite the fact that the trial court had twice denied D&P's motion, after reconsidering the matter, the court granted the motion. It determined that the evidence presented at trial demonstrated that D&P was plaintiff's "primary" employer, and as such, plaintiff was barred from bringing a personal injury action against D&P.

Unknown

Unknown

Following appeal, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, affirmed the trial court. See: 730 A.2d 919 (N.J. Super.1999). The date shown above is the date of the appellate court decision and not the trial date. Reported by JAB.