McComish v. DeSoi
42 N.J. 274, 200 A.2d 116, 1964 N.J. LEXIS 203 (1964)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Privately developed safety codes or manuals representing a consensus of opinion in an industry are admissible in a negligence action as illustrative evidence of safety practices generally prevailing in that industry, which can aid a jury in determining the standard of reasonable care.
Facts:
- Beloit Iron Works (Beloit) designed and built a large paper-making machine for Whippany Paper Board Company (Whippany).
- A Beloit engineer designed a custom 'A' sling to lift a one-ton wire screen, a component of the machine.
- Two Whippany iron workers, under the supervision of a Beloit engineer, constructed the sling.
- During construction, the workers mistakenly used 5/8 inch wire cable instead of the intended 3/4 inch cable.
- They also secured the 5/8 inch cable with two 3/4 inch Crosby clamps, which were oversized for the cable being used.
- On June 22, 1958, while lifting the wire screen, one side of the cable slipped out of the oversized clamps.
- The sling assembly collapsed, causing the screen to fall, which killed Robert McComish and injured Robert Toman, both Whippany employees.
Procedural Posture:
- Lavina Mae McComish, as administratrix for Robert McComish's estate, and Robert Toman sued Beloit Iron Works and Brennan Company, Inc. in a New Jersey trial court.
- At trial, a jury found for the plaintiffs and awarded judgments against both Beloit and Brennan.
- Defendants Beloit and Brennan appealed the judgment to the Appellate Division.
- The Appellate Division reversed the judgment against Brennan, finding insufficient evidence of negligence.
- The Appellate Division also ordered a new trial for Beloit, holding that the trial court erred by admitting several safety manuals into evidence.
- Both the plaintiffs and defendant Beloit successfully petitioned the Supreme Court of New Jersey for certification to review the Appellate Division's decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Are privately published safety codes or manuals, which represent a consensus of opinion in an industry, admissible as evidence to help determine the standard of reasonable care in a negligence action?
Opinions:
Majority - Francis, J.
Yes, privately published safety codes or manuals are admissible as evidence to help determine the standard of reasonable care. The court distinguished these codes from 'learned treatises,' which are generally inadmissible hearsay because they represent the opinion of a single expert not subject to cross-examination. Safety codes, by contrast, represent a consensus of opinion from a significant segment of an industry. They are not introduced as substantive law or as an absolute standard of care, but rather as illustrative evidence of the methods and practices generally accepted and followed by experienced people in the field. This evidence of 'what is usually done' serves as an aid to the jury in determining 'what ought to be done' under the standard of reasonable prudence. Therefore, the trial court did not err in admitting the manuals to support expert testimony regarding the proper standard of care for constructing the sling.
Analysis:
This decision carves out a significant exception to the general rule against admitting learned treatises as substantive evidence, distinguishing industry safety codes based on their nature as a 'consensus of opinion.' It provides a clear pathway for litigants in negligence cases, particularly those involving industrial or technical settings, to establish the standard of care using authoritative, industry-recognized documents. By allowing these codes as illustrative evidence rather than conclusive proof, the decision empowers the jury to consider industry custom while still retaining the ultimate authority to determine what constitutes reasonable care. This precedent makes it easier for plaintiffs to prove negligence by showing a defendant's deviation from established safety norms.
