Court Opinion

ID: 9449908
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 16:27:25.665483+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:02.631806
License: Public Domain

MEDINA, Circuit Judge (dissenting).
I dissent. I agree with my brothers that the New Jersey Safety Code is inapplicable. I also agree that the verdict for defendant rested on an unsound base because of the bizarre way in which the trial judge instructed the jury that it was their function to formulate the rule of law defining the duty of a landowner to employees of a contractor lawfully working on the premises. I disagree with the holding that the widow has no rights under New Jersey law.
As stated in the majority opinion Anheuser-Busch, Inc. must be considered the owner of the sign with all its appurtenances. It was clearly affixed to the building and the owner could not by an agreement with Art Kraft Strauss Sign Corporation divest itself of the duty to furnish a reasonably safe place to work to employees of a contractor who would in the course of their employment do the type of work decedent was called upon to do at the time the cable snapped and he was precipitated to his death. My brothers also correctly state the New Jersey law to be that the landowner “is not obligated to protect the employees of the contractor from hazards which are incidental to or part of the very work which the independent contractor has been hired to perform.” Where I disagree is on the application of this rule to the evidence before us.
There was evidence from which the jury might have found that the snapping of the cable was due, not solely to a failure to grease the cables, but in whole or in part to exhaust vapors containing sulfurous acid that frequently enveloped the cables and caused an acceleration of corrosion. Thus the jury might have found as a fact that this acceleration of corrosion was a substantial factor in causing the accident. If so, the accident was not due exclusively to a hazard that was incidental to or part of the work to be performed by the contractor, and the cases relied upon by my brothers are not applicable.
As I read the New Jersey cases the rule that governs this case is that a landowner owes to employees of a contractor working on the premises a duty to take the precautions for the safety of such employees that a reasonably prudent landowner would take under the circumstances of the case. Hardman v. Ford Motor Company, App.Div., 1961, 70 N.J. Super. 275, 175 A.2d 455; Sommer v. Public Service Corporation of New Jersey, Ct.Err. & App., 1910, 79 N.J.L. 349, 75 A. 892; Zanca v. Conti, App.Div., 1962, 73 N.J.Super. 23, 179 A.2d 129; Mergel v. Colgate-Palmolive-Peet Co., App.Div., 1956, 41 N.J.Super. 372, 125 A.2d 292; Wolczak v. National Electric Products Corp., App.Div., 1961, 66 N.J. Super. 64, 168 A.2d 412; Broecker v. Armstrong Cork Co., Ct.Err. & App., 1942, 128 N.J.L. 3, 24 A.2d 194.
Reasonable men might differ on the subject of whether Anheuser-Busch, Inc. *720knew or should have known that the clouds of sulfurous vapor came in contact with the cables and might or did cause an acceleration of corrosion. Reasonable men might also differ on the subject of whether a reasonably prudent landowner, under the circumstances of this case, would have warned the contractor of the danger.
I would reverse and remand for a new trial.