NJ Tort Claims Act Defeats Contractor’s Catastrophic Injury Claim

Plaintiff William Muha became paralyzed from the waist down when he fell off a ladder after accepting a job from Fast Signs to install signs on a column at Kean University.  Muha filed a worker’s compensation claim against FastSigns and a notice of claim against the University.  The worker’s compensation Judge dismissed plaintiff’s petition holding that plaintiff was an independent contractor and not an employee.  The case was arbitrated resulting in a $6 million award with 50% of the comparative fault attributed to plaintiff.  The defendants filed a trial de novo and moved for summary judgment on plaintiff’s claims.  The Trial Court granted defendants’ motions.  Plaintiff appealed.  On February 8, 2017, the Appellate Division affirmed summary judgment in favor of defendants.   The facts in Muha v. Kean University are not complex:

The first day of the sign installation was uneventful.  Although plaintiff requested a lift, the parties eventually settled on a 40’ foot ladder provided by one of the defendants.  Plaintiff’s father held the ladder for some of the installation.

On Day Two, the ladder plaintiff used on the day before was not available.  Plaintiff did not tell the University that he needed a ladder.  Instead, plaintiff decided to borrow his father’s ladder.  But this time his father did not help plaintiff. As Muha was cleaning the column to install the sign, the ladder “kicked out” and began leaning toward the left.  Plaintiff fell, hitting the ground and became paralyzed from the waist down.

The Court held that plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case against the University under the Tort Claims Act (“TCA”). See N.J.S.A. § 59:4-2.  The Act provides that a public entity can be liable for an injury caused by a condition of its property if plaintiff establishes a “dangerous condition” existed on the property that proximately caused the injury and that the injury was “foreseeable.”  In this case, plaintiff was using his father’s ladder –not one provided by the University.  Therefore, the defendant did not create a dangerous condition as required by the statute.  Also, the Court noted that Plaintiff did not argue that the building or the column, where the signs were to be hung, was a dangerous condition.  Finally, plaintiff’s decision not to advise the University of the issue with the ladder and to solve the problem himself by using his father’s ladder, eliminated plaintiff’s ability to prove actual or constructive notice.

The Court also provided a helpful analysis of whether the plaintiff was an independent contractor or an employee.  “FastSigns did not retain control of the manner or means of the work that was to be performed.  FastSigns was not present at the location on the day of the accident, did not provide plaintiff with the tools needed to install the vinyl signs other than the actual signs themselves, and … plaintiff [and not FastSigns had] direct communication with Kean [the client].”  The Court also determined that plaintiff was not “incompetent,” in other words he was experienced with sign installation and skilled using a ladder at least three times per week. The Court also did not find that the sign installation was an inherently dangerous job or “nuisance per se.”  Therefore, the Court concluded plaintiff was an independent contractor.

The Court’s practical approach is notable: “[R]outine precautions such as someone hold the ladder could have decreased plaintiff’s chances of injury.”  Plaintiff’s serious injuries did not override the fact-sensitive analysis of the employment relationship and the events leading up to the accident.

Thanks to Ann Marie Murzin for her contribution.

For more information, contact Denise Fontana Ricci at .