Opinion ID: 2270032
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: as to rader.

Text: We agree with the Appellate Division that there was sufficient evidence of negligence by Rader to take this issue to the jury. The testimony of plaintiff's expert showed an industry custom of visual inspection by the general contractor of the interior under the roof to be worked on. Further, as discussed above, the jury might have found that under the circumstances of the case the standard of reasonable care required the general contractor to make such an inspection regardless of industry custom. The Appellate Division determined that the following part of the trial judge's charge was erroneous in that it took from the jury the question of whether Rader had in fact such physical control over the job site that his duty of reasonable care required him to make an inspection. The trial judge instructed the jury that: The liability of Rader, who was acting in the manner of a contractor in this case, to persons working in and around the job site on the premises of another is founded on the assumption that the owner of the premises has placed the contractor in physical control of the job site. By virtue of this control Rader is under a duty to exercise reasonable care to maintain the premises; that portion of it over which he has control in a reasonably safe condition. Rader must exercise reasonable care for the safety of persons working in and around the job site, to see that they are not injured by any dangerous conditions actually known to him and, likewise, of a dangerous condition of which the defendant William Rader, by the exercise of reasonable care and by the making of a proper inspection could have discovered. The substance of this part of the charge is that Rader was given some control over the premises and therefore was put under a duty to use reasonable care for the safety of persons working in and around the job site. The Appellate Division thought that the trial judge took the above-quoted language from Schwartz v. Zulka, 70 N.J. Super. 256 ( App. Div. 1961), modified on other grounds Schwartz v. North Jersey Building Contractors Corp., 38 N.J. 9 (1962) where a general contractor in physical control of a job site was held to have a duty to exercise reasonable care for the safety of invitees analogous to the duty of a landowner. 70 N.J. Super., at pp. 261-262. In the present case unlike Schwartz v. Zulka there was a fact controversy as to whether Rader had such physical control. Although he was the general contractor and was present on the day of the accident, he said it was only to point out the roof to be repaired; further, his testimony indicated that as part of their regular working agreement Conti assumed full control of the resurfacing work. Since we have determined that it is necessary to remand this case to the trial court, we need not decide whether this instruction was prejudicial. We note, however, that premising the duty of Rader to make an inspection on actual physical control assumed as true a circumstance in controversy. Rader's duty to inspect, if any, turned not on his control of the job site but on his assumption of responsibility in making the contract. If at the retrial the facts are the same, the judge should merely let the jury decide whether Rader had a duty to inspect, and if so whether his inspection met his duty of reasonable care. For the foregoing reasons the judgment of the Appellate Division as to Conti is reversed and as to Rader is affirmed, and the matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. For affirmance in part and reversal in part  Chief Justice WEINTRAUB and Justices JACOBS, FRANCIS, PROCTOR, HALL, SCHETTINO and HANEMAN  7. Opposed  None.