Workers' Compensation: Intentional Tort v Negligence

A New Jersey appellate court found that an employee could not proceed with an intentional tort claim against an employer because the evidence needed to meet the two-prong standard was lacking.

Background:

- Plaintiff/Employee: Kyle Busby
- Defendant: Seabrook Brothers & Sons, Inc. (a.k.a. Seabrook Farms), along with other equipment-related companies
- Accident: Plaintiff injured his right hand on April 19, 2017, while cleaning a commercial mixing machine at Seabrook's facility. The machine became activated during the cleaning process, causing the injury.

Key Details of the Incident:

- Seabrook processes and packages frozen vegetables. The machine involved in the incident, "Line 9," mixed vegetables.
- The machine had an auger, which created a hazardous "in-running nip" point where injuries could occur if body parts were caught.
- Seabrook had modified the machine using a conveyor system from their storage, which required removing a guard to clean the machine. The guard's removal exposed employees to the dangerous auger.
- Plaintiff had only been working in the specific cold room area for less than a week and was not trained on the necessary lockout/tagout (LOTO) safety procedures.

Legal Issue:

The plaintiff claimed that Seabrook’s actions in modifying the machine and not training employees on safety procedures constituted an "intentional wrong" under the New Jersey Workers' Compensation Act, which would allow him to bypass the act's exclusive remedy provision and sue for personal injury.

Lower Court Decision:

- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Seabrook, concluding that:
- Seabrook did not engage in deliberate or affirmative acts leading to the injury.
- The absence of the guard was not an intentional act but rather related to the cleaning process.
- The injury resulted from Seabrook's failure to have proper LOTO [Lockout-Tagout] procedures and training, which amounted to negligence rather than an intentional wrong.

Appellate Court Analysis:

- Review Standard: The appellate court reviewed the trial court's summary judgment decision de novo, examining whether any genuine issues of material fact existed.
Plaintiff’s Arguments: The plaintiff argued that removing the guard and not implementing proper safety measures created a substantial certainty of harm.
- Claimed the trial court improperly considered evidence outside the record and disregarded his expert’s report.

Decision:

- The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding:
- Seabrook’s conduct did not meet New Jersey law's "intentional wrong" standard.
- While negligent, the failure to train and implement LOTO procedures did not rise to the level of intentional harm.
- Seabrook was aware of no evidence of prior similar injuries or close calls, which would indicate a substantial certainty of harm.

Key Takeaways:

- The court emphasized the distinction between negligence and intentional wrongs under the Workers' Compensation Act.
- Safety protocol failures and lack of training, even if negligent, do not automatically constitute intentional wrongs that would allow employees to bypass workers' compensation exclusivity.

The decision underscores the importance of robust safety procedures and training in preventing workplace injuries and potential legal actions.

Kyle Busby v Seabrook Brothers & Sons, Inc., A-1925-21 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2024)

Recommended Citation: Gelman, Jon L., Intentional Tort v Negligence, www.gelmans.com (08/06/2024) https://workers-compensation.blogspot.com/2024/08/intentional-tort-v-negligence.html

......

ORDER NOW

....

*Jon L. Gelman of Wayne, NJ, is the author of NJ Workers’ Compensation Law (West-Thomson-Reuters) and co-author of the national treatise Modern Workers’ Compensation Law (West-Thomson-Reuters). For over five decades, the Law Offices of Jon Gelman 1.973.696.7900
jon@gelmans.com has represented injured workers and their families who have suffered occupational illnesses and diseases.