Tarabokia v. Structure Tone
57 A.3d 25, 429 N.J. Super. 103, 2012 N.J. Super. LEXIS 180 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A general contractor does not owe a duty of care to a subcontractor's employee for injuries arising from the manner and means of using equipment supplied by the subcontractor, where the general contractor does not control the subcontractor's work and the risk of harm is latent and not reasonably foreseeable.
Facts:
- Structure Tone was the general contractor hired by Novo Nordisk, Inc. for an interior construction project.
- Structure Tone hired Hatzel & Buehler (H & B), an electrical contractor, to perform the electrical work.
- H & B employed Raymond Tarabokia, Jr. as an electrician for the project.
- H & B directed Tarabokia to install ceiling anchors using a DX351 powder-actuated tool that H & B supplied.
- H & B also instructed Tarabokia to use an extension pole with the tool and arranged for him to be trained on its operation.
- Tarabokia used the tool without anti-vibration gloves for approximately eight hours a day over the course of one month.
- As a result of this repetitive use, Tarabokia developed multiple level polyneural compression syndromes, a permanent injury in both arms.
- Structure Tone's safety plan stated that subcontractors were responsible for the maintenance of safe operations and that Structure Tone did not direct, control, or supervise the actual performance of subcontractor work.
Procedural Posture:
- Raymond Tarabokia, Jr. sued Structure Tone for negligence in a New Jersey trial court.
- Structure Tone filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing it owed no duty of care to Tarabokia.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Structure Tone, dismissing Tarabokia's complaint.
- Tarabokia (appellant) appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, where Structure Tone was the appellee.
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 general contractor owe a duty of care to a subcontractor's employee for a repetitive motion injury arising from the manner and means of using equipment supplied by the subcontractor, when the contractor lacks control over the subcontractor's work and has no actual or constructive knowledge of the specific, latent risk of harm?
Opinions:
Majority - Parrillo, P.J.A.D.
No, a general contractor does not owe a duty of care to a subcontractor's employee under these circumstances. The court reasoned that while general contractors have a duty to maintain a safe worksite, this duty does not typically extend to the specific means and methods of a subcontractor's work. The court applied the multi-factor balancing test from Alloway v. Bradlees, Inc., focusing on foreseeability. Unlike cases with immediate and obvious dangers like a defective truck (Alloway) or a collapsing trench (Carvalho), the risk here was a latent, repetitive motion injury that was not reasonably foreseeable to Structure Tone. Structure Tone had no actual knowledge of the improper or prolonged use of the tool. Furthermore, Structure Tone did not retain control over the manner and means of H & B's work; H & B, as the expert subcontractor, selected the tool, trained the employee, and directed the work methods. Therefore, fairness and public policy do not support imposing a duty on the general contractor for an injury arising from the operative details of a subcontractor's specialized task.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the distinction between a general contractor's duty for overall site safety and a subcontractor's responsibility for the safety of its own specialized tasks. It clarifies that for a general contractor's duty to extend to the means and methods of a subcontractor's work, there must be a significant level of control or, critically, foreseeability of the specific risk. The ruling distinguishes between patent, immediately obvious dangers and latent, process-related injuries, suggesting that the bar for establishing foreseeability is higher for the latter. This precedent protects general contractors from liability for risks inherent in a subcontractor's specialized expertise, provided the contractor reasonably relies on that expertise and does not have knowledge of the specific danger.
