Court Opinion

ID: 9697998
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 19:39:11.245895+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:37.650531
License: Public Domain

*126Weintbaxtb, C. J.
(concurring). I agree with the result reached in the majority opinion but would place it upon another ground.
The accident happened in Pennsylvania. A cause of action for negligence could arise only under its law. We may not project our law into another jurisdiction and thereby create such liability where that other jurisdiction holds there is none.
We are not dealing with the right of an employee against his actual employer. In that area it is settled that the state of employment and the state of accident may each enforce its own workmen's compensation program. Defendant was not in fact the employer of plaintiff, and was not a party to plaintiff's employment by the subcontractor in New Jersey. Nor is the claim here advanced one for compensation benefits under our statute, as to which a general contractor may be responsible under circumstances not here present. R. 8. 34:15-79. Our statute preserves (it does not create) third-party liability for negligence. R. 8. 34:15-3; R. 8. 34:15-40. I see no basis in our statute or case law for a holding that the execution of a subcontract in this State subjects the general contractor to our tort law with respect to accidental injury of an employee of a subcontractor outside our jurisdiction.
Hence the pivotal question, in my view, is whether the cause of action here asserted came into being under the law of Pennsylvania. Defendant argues that the cause of action did arise in that state, subject to a “defense” defendant might plead, i. e., that its liability is confined to the payment of benefits under the statutory scheme of that state. Upon this thesis, plaintiff says the question is whether we would recognize a “defense” created by Pennsylvania law and in that inquiry should use an interest-weighing approach. I think it sufficient to say that this two-step analysis of the Pennsylvania law is artificial, and no less so because as a matter of practice and pleading a defendant may have to advance facts which show the alleged cause of action did *127not arise. The effect of the Pennsylvania statute is that upon the total facts no liability for negligence came into being.
Weinteaub, C. J., concurring in result.
For reversal—Chief Justice Weinteaub, and Justices Hehee, Wacheneeld, Beeling, Jacobs, Eeancis and Peootoe—7.
For affirmance■—None.