Majestic Realty Associates, Inc. v. Toti Contracting Co.
30 N.J. 425, 1959 N.J. LEXIS 186, 153 A.2d 321 (1959)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landowner who hires an independent contractor to perform work that the landowner should recognize as necessarily creating a peculiar risk of harm to others unless special precautions are taken, has a non-delegable duty to ensure those precautions are taken and is liable for harm caused by the contractor's failure to do so.
Facts:
- The Parking Authority of the City of Paterson acquired properties adjacent to a building owned by Majestic Realty Associates, Inc. to create a public parking area.
- The Authority contracted with Toti Contracting Co., Inc., an independent contractor, to demolish the buildings on the acquired property.
- One building to be demolished stood immediately adjacent to Majestic's building, sharing a wall and rising approximately 20 feet higher.
- In the course of demolition, Toti used a 3,500-pound metal ball suspended from a crane.
- Toti first removed the roof, interior partitions, and other walls, leaving the brick wall next to Majestic's building standing free without support.
- The crane operator swung the ball, striking the free-standing wall about 15 feet below its top.
- The impact caused a 15 by 40 foot section of the wall to fall onto Majestic's roof, causing a large hole and damaging the goods of the tenant, Bohen's, Inc.
- Expert testimony characterized this type of demolition in a dense urban setting as 'hazardous work'.
Procedural Posture:
- Majestic Realty and Bohen's (plaintiffs) sued Toti Contracting and the Parking Authority (defendants) in the trial court for damages.
- At the close of the plaintiffs' case, the trial court granted a motion to dismiss the action against the Parking Authority.
- The case against Toti Contracting proceeded to a jury, which returned verdicts in favor of the plaintiffs.
- Majestic and Bohen's, as appellants, appealed the trial court's dismissal of their claim against the Parking Authority, the appellee, to the Appellate Division.
- The Appellate Division reversed the trial court's dismissal in a 2-1 decision and ordered a new trial against the Authority.
- The case was then appealed to the Supreme Court of New Jersey for a final determination.
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 who hires an independent contractor to perform an inherently dangerous activity, such as demolishing a building in a built-up urban area, have a non-delegable duty to protect adjacent property from the contractor's negligence?
Opinions:
Majority - Francis, J.
Yes, a landowner has a non-delegable duty to protect adjacent property from an independent contractor's negligence when the work is inherently dangerous. While the general rule insulates a landowner from liability for the negligence of an independent contractor, an exception applies for activities that are a 'nuisance per se' or 'inherently dangerous.' The court moves away from the confusing 'nuisance per se' terminology and adopts the modern 'inherently dangerous' framework from the Restatement of Torts, § 416. This framework applies to work that involves a peculiar risk of harm unless special precautions are taken. Demolishing a building in a busy, built-up city qualifies as such an activity. Because the work is inherently dangerous, the landowner’s duty to ensure care is taken is non-delegable, meaning it cannot be contracted away to avoid liability. This rule promotes distributive justice by placing the risk on the party benefiting from the work and incentivizes landowners to select competent and careful contractors.
Analysis:
This decision modernizes New Jersey law by replacing the vague 'nuisance per se' doctrine with the more precise 'inherently dangerous' activity framework from the Restatement of Torts. It establishes that a landowner's duty of care for such activities is non-delegable, significantly expanding the liability of those who initiate hazardous projects like urban demolition. The ruling shifts a portion of the risk of loss from innocent third parties to the property owners who benefit from the hazardous work. This creates a strong incentive for landowners to ensure their independent contractors are competent, careful, and adequately insured.
