Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

103 N.J. Super. 522

248 A.2d 129

Bryan v. Jeffers

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division

Decided December 3, 1968

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · decided 1968-12-03

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“policy objective sought by the 1961 amendment would not be attained if the exception for 'intentional wrong' were construed to leave open a loophole for such actions against fellow employees in the guise of claims for 'gross negligence.'”

quoted by 6 later decisions, including 460 N.J. Super. 123 - Bove v. Akpharma Inc., Copeland v. Johns-Manville Products Corp.

“the exception for `intentional wrong' in the statute eliminating tort liability, as between persons in the same employ, where the injury sued for is compensable by workmen's compensation, N.J.S.A. 34:15-8, is equatable with `gross negligence,' or similar concepts importing constructive intent.”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including 460 N.J. Super. 123 - Bove v. Akpharma Inc., 275 N.J. Super. 594 - Monaghan v. Holy Trinity Church

Relies on 67 N.J. Super. 305 - Miller v. Muscarelle · Miller v. Muscarelle

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1968-12-03

How this case has been cited

Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently July 2019 · most notably Millison v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. (1985), Pleasant v. Johnson (1985)

6 district · 38 state decisions

160196819701980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

HELEN B. BRYAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF JOHN S. BRYAN, DECEASED, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
HENRY JEFFERS, JR., AND HENRY W. JEFFERS, III, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS, AND NEW JERSEY MANUFACTURERS INSURANCE COMPANY, ETC., ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

¶1Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

Argued November 18, 1968.
Decided December 3, 1968.

¶2*523 Before Judges CONFORD, KILKENNY and LEONARD.

¶3Mr. Herman W. Kapp argued the cause for appellant (Mr. Albert W. Seaman, of counsel).

¶4Mr. Robert E. Monaghan argued the cause for respondents (Messrs. Schneider & Morgan, attorneys).

¶5PER CURIAM.

¶6We do not agree with the contention of plaintiff that the exception for "intentional wrong" in the statute eliminating tort liability, as between persons in the same employ, where the injury sued for is compensable by workmen's compensation, N.J.S.A. 34:15-8, is equatable with "gross negligence," or similar concepts importing constructive intent.

¶7Our discussion of the background against which the cited provision of the Workmen's Compensation Law was adopted by amendment in 1961 (L. 1961, c. 2) in Miller v. Muscarelle,67 N.J. Super. 305, 321 (App. Div. 1961), certification denied 36 N.J. 140 (1961), demonstrates there was a strong legislative reaction against the previous practice of workmen suing fellow employees, even those in supervisory capacities, after recovery of compensation against the common employer. It was there pointed out that in practical effect such actions often subject the employer itself to an indirect burden of liability to the injured employee beyond that scheduled by the workmen's compensation act. Ibid. The policy objective sought by the 1961 amendment would not be attained if the exception for "intentional wrong" were construed to leave open a loophole for such actions against fellow employees in the guise of claims for "gross negligence." We think the Legislature intended the words *524 "intentional wrong," in this context, to have their commonly understood signification of deliberate intention. Compare 2 Larson, Workmen's Compensation Law, § 69.20, pp. 161-62, dealing with employer-misconduct statutes, where willful intent to cause injury is held to require a showing of deliberate intention rather than gross negligence.

¶8In view of the foregoing we need not consider whether there was a common-law liability of defendants to the decedent in respect of the dangerous condition of the autoclave, on the fact situation here shown and the legal principles concerning duty laid down in relation thereto in Miller v. Muscarelle, supra (67 N.J. Super., at p. 331).

¶9Judgment affirmed.

/103/njsuper/522 · .json · Public domain