> >
| Case Name | Suarez v. Lee Industries | |
|---|---|---|
| Date | 07/27/2007 | |
| Note | To maintain a common law action under N.J.S.A. 34:15-8, an employee is not required to show that the employer had a subjective desire to harm its employees. However, the employee must satisfy the two prong test originally articulated by the Supreme Court ... First, the employee must satisfy the 'conduct' prong by alleging sufficient facts to show that his or her employer knew its actions were 'substantially certain to result in injury or death to the employee.' Second, the employee must satisfy the 'context' prong by a showing that 'the resulting injury and the circumstances of its infliction on the worker' constituted 'more than a fact of life of industrial employment' and was 'plainly beyond anything the Legislature intended the Workers' Compensation Act to immunize.' | |
| Citation | A-6436-05T3 | |
| WCC Citation | WCC 02008 NJ |
Olivier J. Kirmser argued the cause for appellant Lee Industries in A-0787-06t3 and respondent Lee Industries in A-6436-05t3 (Miller & Lamastra, attorneys; Mr. Kirmser, on the brief). Lee delivered the tank into which Suarez fell to Cosmetics in 1991 and modified the tank in 1994. Suarez brought this personal injury action against Lee for the personal injuries he suffered when he fell into the tank. Suarez appeals from the summary judgment dismissing his complaint, and Lee appeals from the summary judgment dismissing its third-party complaint against Cosmetics. . 9 Lee Industries' failed to provide a product that afforded Suarez protections afforded by like manufacturers making similar products which was a cause of Suarez's injury.
Download full case here.
Download full case here.