Izzo v. Linpro Co.
278 N.J. Super. 550, 651 A.2d 1047 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A building manager who acts as a prime contractor by hiring and coordinating subcontractors assumes a non-delegable duty under OSHA regulations to ensure a safe workplace for a subcontractor's employees. A violation of these federal regulations can serve as the basis for a state-law tort claim against the prime contractor.
Facts:
- Morristown Office Partners, the owner of an office building, employed The Linpro Company to manage the property.
- To prepare a vacant office suite for a new tenant, Linpro's employee, Angelo Morreale, hired Nova Interiors, Inc. to remove drywall and Protective Electric to perform electrical work.
- Vincent Izzo was an electrician's helper employed by Protective Electric.
- On the morning of the job, Morreale instructed Izzo's supervising co-employee not to indiscriminately disconnect all electricity in the building due to the presence of other tenants.
- After Nova Interiors finished its work, Izzo began working on an electrical receptacle without first verifying that the power to that specific circuit was turned off.
- The receptacle was still energized, and Izzo received an electric shock, resulting in neurologic injury.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Vincent Izzo filed a complaint against The Linpro Company and Angelo Morreale in a state trial court.
- Izzo later filed an amended complaint, adding Morristown Office Partners and Nova Interiors, Inc. as defendants.
- The trial court granted three separate motions for summary judgment, dismissing the case against all defendants.
- Izzo's subsequent motions for reconsideration of the summary judgments for Linpro, Morreale, and Morristown were denied by the trial court.
- Izzo, as plaintiff-appellant, appealed all three summary judgment orders to the Superior Court of New Jersey, 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:
Does a building manager, acting in the capacity of a prime contractor by hiring and coordinating subcontractors for a renovation project, have a non-delegable duty under OSHA regulations to ensure a safe workplace for a subcontractor's employee, thereby creating a potential basis for liability in a state tort claim?
Opinions:
Majority - Kleiner, J.A.D.
Yes, a building manager acting as a prime contractor has a non-delegable duty under OSHA regulations to ensure a safe workplace for a subcontractor's employee, which can form the basis of a state tort claim. The court determined that The Linpro Company, by hiring and coordinating the various subcontractors for the renovation, assumed the role of the 'prime contractor' under OSHA. Citing 29 C.F.R. § 1926.16, the court explained that a prime contractor has 'overall responsibility for compliance' with safety requirements for all work performed and shares 'joint responsibility' with subcontractors. Relying on precedent from Meder v. Resorts Int'l Hotel, Inc., the court held that a violation of these federal OSHA obligations can support a tort claim under state law. This duty exists even without the prime contractor's active interference in the subcontractor's work, distinguishing it from the general common-law rule. Therefore, the existence of this OSHA-imposed duty was sufficient to preclude summary judgment for Linpro and Morreale. Conversely, because OSHA regulations do not impose a similar duty on a property owner, summary judgment for Morristown Office Partners was appropriate, as it was for Nova Interiors, which had no connection to the electrical hazard.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle that federal OSHA regulations can create a non-delegable duty of care for general contractors under state tort law, expanding liability beyond the traditional common-law framework. It establishes that a party's functional role, such as a building manager coordinating trades, determines its status as a 'prime contractor' subject to OSHA's comprehensive safety responsibilities. This precedent makes it more difficult for general contractors and project managers to avoid liability for injuries to subcontractors' employees by claiming they did not control the specific means and methods of the work. Consequently, it places a greater affirmative burden on those in charge of a multi-employer worksite to ensure overall safety compliance.
