Dawson v. Bunker Hill Plaza Associates
289 N.J. Super. 309, 1996 N.J. Super. LEXIS 153, 673 A.2d 847 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landowner is generally not liable for injuries sustained by an employee of an independent contractor when the injury arises from a hazard inherent to the work the contractor was hired to perform. Liability will also not attach to other parties, such as suppliers or equipment operators, unless their conduct is proven to be a substantial factor in causing the harm, and expert opinions supporting such claims must be based on a sufficient factual foundation, not mere speculation.
Facts:
- Bunker Hill Plaza Associates (Bunker Hill) owned a property where a shopping center was being constructed.
- Bunker Hill hired Glendale Builders as the general contractor, who then subcontracted the erection of roof trusses to I & B Builders.
- Plaintiffs John Dawson, Loren Halter, and Granville Williams were carpenters employed by I & B Builders.
- Manna Crane Service, Inc. (Manna Crane) was hired to provide a crane to lift the prefabricated roof trusses into place.
- Haddonfield Lumber Company, Inc. (Haddonfield Lumber) supplied lumber for the project and prepared an estimate of the bracing materials needed.
- While Dawson, Halter, and Williams were erecting and temporarily bracing the roof trusses, the trusses collapsed in a domino-like fashion.
- The collapse was caused by inadequate bracing of the trusses.
- The carpenters were thrown to the concrete floor and the trusses fell on them, causing serious personal injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- John Dawson, Loren Halter, Granville Williams, and their wives (plaintiffs) filed a personal injury lawsuit in the Law Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey (trial court) against numerous defendants, including Bunker Hill, Manna Crane, and Haddonfield Lumber.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants Bunker Hill, Manna Crane, and Haddonfield Lumber, dismissing the plaintiffs' claims against them.
- Plaintiffs settled their claims with the remaining defendants.
- Plaintiffs (appellants) appealed the trial court's grants of summary judgment to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey.
- Haddonfield Lumber (appellee) filed a cross-appeal against the dismissal of its claims against other defendants.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a landowner, a crane operator, or a lumber supplier owe a duty of care to an independent contractor's employees for injuries arising from the inherent risks of the construction work, such as the collapse of inadequately braced roof trusses, when the landowner did not control the work and the causal link to the other parties is speculative?
Opinions:
Majority - Michels, P.J.A.D.
No, a landowner, a crane operator, or a lumber supplier does not owe a duty of care to an independent contractor's employees under these circumstances. The court reasoned that while a landowner generally owes a duty to protect invitees from discoverable dangers, there is a well-recognized exception for hazards that are incidental to the very work an independent contractor's employee was hired to perform. Here, the risk of trusses collapsing due to inadequate bracing was an inherent danger of the plaintiffs' job as carpenters. Bunker Hill did not retain control over the construction methods and was entitled to assume that the contractors and their employees possessed the skill to perform the work safely. Furthermore, OSHA regulations impose safety duties on employers and general contractors, not on property owners. Regarding Manna Crane, the plaintiffs failed to establish proximate cause, as their expert's opinion that the crane operator damaged the trusses was a speculative 'net opinion' without a factual foundation. Similarly, the claim against Haddonfield Lumber failed because plaintiffs could not prove that any allegedly defective lumber was a substantial factor in the collapse, nor did the supplier assume a duty to design a comprehensive bracing plan by merely providing a materials estimate.
Analysis:
This decision strongly reinforces the 'inherent risk' exception to landowner liability, providing significant protection to property owners who delegate construction work to independent contractors without retaining control over the means and methods. It clarifies that the primary responsibility for worksite safety, including compliance with OSHA, rests with the general contractor, not the landowner. The case also serves as a stark reminder of the 'net opinion rule,' demonstrating that expert testimony will be disregarded on summary judgment if it lacks a concrete factual basis and relies on speculation or conjecture. This raises the evidentiary bar for plaintiffs attempting to establish causation against peripheral actors in complex construction accidents.
