- Welcome

Of all the New Jersey lawyers to choose from, you need an experienced and skilled attorney to stand up for you.  Being injured by the negligence of another can be one of the most stressful and difficult times in your life. Your routine, livelihood and body may be broken along with your family budget in jeopardy. If injured by the negligence of another, you need a skilled New Jersey personal injury lawyer to fight for you against insurance companies that seek to make you a victim for a second time. An experienced and skilled New Jersey accident lawyer knows that insurance claims adjusters have been trained to limit or deny claims made by policyholders.

At this point, you are probably confused and anxious. Rest assured, I shall take the time to personally review your case using my skill as an attorney practicing New Jersey accident law for your protection and best possible outcome. I take the time to get to know you, what you need and how I can help. I am a passionate advocate for my clients in their time of need. 

Injury Blog of the Week

New Jersey accident lawyers question whether evidence of comparative
negligence can be a defense when injured worker had no choice of tools

The District Court in McGee v. Stihl Inc., held that a manufacturer defending a product liability suit by injured New Jersey worker cannot seek to introduce evidence of comparative negligence by the employer or the employee as a defense. The Plaintiff in this case was a superintendent who decided to do a task himself instead of waiting for a laborer, and had options on where and how to use the machine. He was cutting pipe using a gas powered saw made by Stihl, which his NJ personal injury lawyer alleged was defective raising strict liability and breach of warranty, when the blade hit him in the face, causing severe injuries. The Court held that this does not raise questions of fact that would divest him of the protection of Suter v. San Angelo Foundry & Machine Co., 81 N.J. 150 (1970).

In deciding this case, the Distrct Judge interpreted the NJ Supreme Court ruling that bars consideration of negligence by a New Jersey injured worker who has “no meaningful choice” but to use that equipment quite broadly.  However, the manufacturer may adduce evidence of the employer’s failure to warn and the plaintiff’s conduct as it relates to proximate cause of the accident.  The Judge held that the comparative negligence argument that Stihl attempted to introduce “tends to go to the very comparative negligence of McGee that the Suter rule prohibits from consideration.”  Additionally, she states “Suter does not dictate a fact analysis as to whether an employee had a “meaningful choice”; rather it provides a rule, grounded in public policy, that an employee engaged in an assigned task, as a matter of law, is deemed to not have a meaningful choice whether to use equipment provided by the employer.”  Although comparative negligence is allowed when a plaintiff uses a product he knows to be defective and takes the risk, the defense is not available “when an employee is injured in an industrial setting while using a defective product supplied by the employer for its intended or foreseeable purposes.” Citing Johnson v. Makita U.S.A. Inc., 128 N.J. 86 (1992). Additionally, the construction site constitutes an “industrial setting” even though Suter took place in a factory.

McGee v. Stihl

Legal Quote of the Week:

“The law is never settled until it is settled right, the Law is never right until it is just, the law is never just until it serves society to the fullest”

Harry Philo

Blog Archives