Appellate Division Upholds Dismissal of Construction Accident Claims Against Employer and Municipality
The New Jersey Appellate Division affirmed three trial court orders dismissing claims brought by James Weiss, a retired firefighter and employee of Altona Blower & Sheet Metal Works, who was seriously injured while installing a firefighter training simulator. Weiss sued the Borough, its Fire Department and later his employer, alleging liability for his injuries. The court held that Weiss’s claims against Altona were time-barred, that the municipal defendants were immune under the Tort Claims Act and that his motion for reconsideration lacked merit, rejecting arguments that his due process rights had been violated and that an intentional wrong exception applied.
Weiss was employed by Altona Blower & Sheet Metal Works and was tasked with designing, constructing and installing a firefighter training simulator purchased by the Borough of Franklin Lakes. In addition to his experience as a retired firefighter, he visited the Borough’s site where the simulator was to be placed before drafting the plans and submitting them to his supervisor, Walter Martin. Martin disagreed with the plaintiff’s recommendation to build the simulator on-site and directed him to construct it at Altona’s location.
On January 15, 2020, the plaintiff and two other Altona employees arrived to install the simulator at the Fire Department of Franklin Lakes’ headquarters. While working, none of them wore safety helmets. Before it was fully secured, the plaintiff removed the lift holding it in place. The temporary welds broke, and the simulator fell from about eight-and-a-half feet high, striking him in the head and torso. The plaintiff was flown by helicopter to a trauma center.
The plaintiff filed suit against the Borough, the Fire Department and a division of the Borough government (collectively the municipal defendants). The municipal defendants then filed a third-party complaint against Altona.
Walter Martin testified in August 2022. After the court granted the plaintiff’s motion to file an amended complaint, he added Altona as a defendant. Altona moved for summary judgment due to the two-year statute of limitations. The plaintiff opposed, arguing he did not discover Altona’s intentional wrongs until Martin’s deposition.
On January 20, 2023, the court issued an oral decision, granting Altona’s motion. It noted the plaintiff waited nearly three years after the accident to move for leave to amend the complaint and that he was well aware he could have filed against Altona as his employer. The municipal defendants also filed a motion for summary judgment, and in June 2023, the court issued a written decision granting same, noting they were immune under the Tort Claims Act. The plaintiff moved for reconsideration, which the court denied.
The plaintiff appealed, arguing that his due process rights were violated when the court ended oral arguments on Altona’s motion before his counsel finished; his claim against Altona was not time barred; he did not establish the intentional wrong exception; the municipal defendants violated N.J.S.A. 40A:11-4.3; and his motion for reconsideration was wrongly denied. The Appellate Division found, based on the hearing transcript, that the court did not deny the plaintiff his procedural due process during the Altona motion hearing. Also, the plaintiff should have been well aware of his claim against Altona, but he failed to file within the statute of limitations’ time period. The Appellate Division also found no basis to reverse the orders against the municipal defendants or the plaintiff in his reconsideration motion.
What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 29, No. 9, September 2025, is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal 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. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2025 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.