Court Opinion

ID: 9764857
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 03:42:04.247201+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:01.909743
License: Public Domain

ALBIN, J.,
concurring.
Although I concur in the judgment of the Court, I believe it is time to adopt a clear and precise rule that an employer’s willful and knowing disengagement or removal of a safety device, the purpose of which is to protect an employee from death or serious bodily injury, constitutes an intentional wrong under N.J.S.A. 34:15-8, stripping the employer of immunity from common-law tort actions. Temporary removal or disengagement of a safety device for repair, maintenance, or some other benign purpose would not be actionable. However, the willful and knowing removal or disengagement of a safety device intended to protect the worker can no longer be a simple fact of industrial life. Such conduct alone is a total breach of the social contract between employer and employee, and, under those circumstances, the *397employer should be barred from the safe haven of the Workers’ Compensation Act. See Tomeo v. Thomas Whitesell Constr. Co., 176 N.J. 366, 380-85, 823 A.2d 769, 779-82 (2003) (Albin, J., dissenting). Justice Zazzali’s well-reasoned and thoughtful concurrence sets forth an incremental approach that, in my opinion, does not go far enough.
For reversal and remandment — Chief Justice PORITZ and Justices COLEMAN, LONG, VERNIERO, LaVECCHIA, ZAZZALI and ALBIN — 7. '
. Opposed — None.