Advertising Disclosure Email Disclosure

The Appellate Division revisits Laidlow and the intentional wrong exception to the exclusive remedy provision of the New Jersey Workers’ Compensation Act.

January 19, 2018
Soto v. ICO Polymers, Docket No. A-3858-14T4, 2017 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2551 (App. Div., decided Oct. 11, 2017)

Finding that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that his workplace accident met the intentional wrong standard to allow him to seek damages from his employer, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff appealed. In reversing and remanding the Superior Court’s ruling, the Appellate Division relied on the seminal case of Laidlow v. Hariton Machinery Co., 170 N.J. 602 (2002) and its progeny. In Laidlow, the court delineated a two-prong test to be utilized as an analytical guide for judges when considering and deciding summary judgment motions based on the workers’ compensation exclusivity provision. This test requires not only that the conduct of the employer be examined, but also the context of the event in question. The Appellate Division determined that the motion judge erred because he failed to give the plaintiff the benefit of all legitimate inferences that can be drawn from the evidence amassed by the parties. The Appellate Division concluded that the plaintiff submitted sufficient evidence from which a jury could infer that, at the time of the accident, the defendant was aware that conditions at the Asbury Park facility were exposing its employees to a high risk of serious injury or death.


Case Law Alerts, 1st Quarter, January 2018

Case Law Alerts is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2018 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.

Affiliated Attorney

Dario J. Badalamenti
(973) 618-4122

Practice Areas

Before you send this email please note:

You are attempting to send email, through a link on our website, to an attorney of Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin or an employee in our firm. Please note that your email may not be treated as confidential and does not create an attorney-client relationship. You should not rely upon the transmission of an email through this website if you are seeking to enter into such a relationship. Until such time as we have agreed to represent you, no information in your email will be treated as confidential. Please contact us directly by telephone at 1.800.220.3308 if it is your intent to seek legal counsel with our firm or convey confidential information.

If it is still your intent to send this email, knowing that it may not be treated as confidential, you may accept our terms of agreement by pressing "OK". If you choose not to accept these terms of agreement you may navigate away from this page by pressing "Cancel."