Cavanaugh v. Skil Corp.
331 N.J. Super. 134, 751 A.2d 564 (1999)
Rule of Law:
In a product liability action arising from a workplace injury, the defense of comparative negligence is unavailable to a manufacturer when an employee is injured while using a defective product for its intended purpose, as the employee is deemed to have no meaningful choice but to use the tools provided. Additionally, regarding the state-of-the-art defense, while the defendant bears the burden of proving the technological state-of-the-art, the plaintiff retains the burden of proving the product's non-conformity to that standard.
Facts:
- Plaintiff was employed as a carpenter framing a new house.
- He selected a portable circular saw manufactured by the defendant to cut 'two by four' lumber.
- Plaintiff made a cut while holding the wood, released the trigger, and placed the saw down on the subfloor to his right.
- Although the motor stopped, the saw blade continued to spin due to momentum for approximately 18 seconds.
- The saw 'traveled' backwards across the floor and ran over the plaintiff's right foot.
- Plaintiff suffered the loss of one toe and severe damage to another.
- Plaintiff alleged the saw was defective because the lower blade guard failed to retract and the saw lacked a 'blade brake' to stop rotation immediately upon trigger release.
- Defendant contended the design was safe and suggested the guard may have been intentionally 'wedged' open, a practice known among some carpenters.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff filed a product liability complaint against the defendant manufacturer in the Superior Court, Law Division.
- The trial court granted plaintiff's motion in limine to bar the defendant from asserting the comparative negligence defense.
- The jury found the product was defectively designed and that the defect was a proximate cause of the injury.
- The trial court entered a monetary judgment in favor of the plaintiff.
- The defendant appealed the judgment to the Appellate Division.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is the defense of comparative negligence available to a product manufacturer when a construction worker is injured by a portable power tool while performing an assigned task at a job site?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge King
No, the comparative negligence defense is barred in workplace product liability settings because workers lack a meaningful choice in the tools they use. The court affirmed the principle established in Suter v. San Angelo Foundry & Machine Co., holding that an employee injured while performing an assigned task is not guilty of contributory negligence. The court rejected the defendant's argument that this protection applies only to factory workers using stationary machinery, extending the reasoning to construction workers using portable tools. The court reasoned that a worker has no meaningful choice but to use the equipment to do their job or face discipline. Regarding the state-of-the-art defense, the court acknowledged the trial judge technically erred in instructing that the defendant had the burden to prove compliance, but found the error harmless because the feasibility of the alternative design (the blade brake) was conceded, and the core dispute was about its practicality and safety trade-offs.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces and expands the 'employee exception' to comparative negligence in New Jersey product liability law. By affirming the reasoning in Tirrell v. Navistar International, Inc., the court clarifies that the Suter doctrine protects all employees performing assigned tasks, not just those in traditional factory settings. It emphasizes that the economic compulsion to work eliminates the 'voluntary' assumption of risk required for a comparative negligence defense. Practically, this makes it significantly harder for manufacturers to defend against workplace injury claims by pointing to the worker's carelessness, shifting the focus almost entirely to the product's design safety. The case also nuances the state-of-the-art defense, distinguishing between technological feasibility (which was admitted) and practical application (which was disputed).
