James H. Coleman

Name: Crippen v. Central Jersey Concrete Pipe Co. — Opinion of the Court
Author: James H. Coleman

Crippen v. Central Jersey Concrete Pipe Co… (2003)

Summary

“Crippen v. Central Jersey Concrete Pipe Co. — Opinion of the Court”, published in 2003, is a work by James H. Coleman. It explores elements such as Crippen, employee and Laidlow.

Quotes from Crippen v. Central Jersey Concrete Pipe Co… (James H. Coleman)

James H. Coleman, Crippen v. Central Jersey Concrete Pipe Co… (2003)

“ An employer's fraudulent concealment of diseases already developed is not one of the risks an employee should have to assume. Such intentionally-deceitful action goes beyond the bargain struck by the Compensation Act.... The legislature, in passing the Compensation Act, could not have intended to insulate such conduct from tort liability. [Id. at 181-82, 501 A.2d 505.]
[p408] Seventeen years later in Laidlow, we revisited our holding in Millison and determined whether the plaintiff was barred from pursuing an intentional tort claim against his employer. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

James H. Coleman, Crippen v. Central Jersey Concrete Pipe Co… (2003)

“ The employer shall provide training to ensure that the purpose and function of the energy control program are understood by employees and that the knowledge and skills required for the safe application, usage, and removal of the energy controls are acquired by employees. The training shall include the following: (A) Each authorized employee shall receive training in the recognition of applicable hazardous energy sources, the type and magnitude of the energy available in the workplace, and the methods and means necessary for energy isolation and control. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

James H. Coleman, Crippen v. Central Jersey Concrete Pipe Co… (2003)

“ Like Portman in Laidlow, Mason is in a unique position to “ ‘shed light on what, if any appreciation [defendant] had concerning the risk of injury associated [p410] with its decision’ ” not to cure the serious OSHA violations. Ibid. (quoting Laidlow, supra, 335 N.J.Super. at 350, 762 A.2d 311) . Mason admitted in his deposition that he knew there was a substantial certainty that an employee could die in one of its permit-required confined spaces. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

James H. Coleman, Crippen v. Central Jersey Concrete Pipe Co… (2003)

“ There is a difference between, on the one hand, tole-rating in the workplace conditions that will result in a certain number of injuries or illnesses, and, on the other, actively misleading the employees who have already fallen victim to those risks of the workplace. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

James H. Coleman, Crippen v. Central Jersey Concrete Pipe Co… (2003)

“ We also concluded that if the plaintiff's allegations were proved, the context prong would be satisfied. We reasoned that:
[I] f an employee is injured when an employer deliberately removes a safety device from a dangerous machine to enhance profit and production, with substantial certainty that it will result in death or injury to a worker, and also deliberately and systematically deceives OSHA into believing that the machine is guarded, we are convinced that the Legislature would never consider such actions or injury to constitute simple facts of industrial life [and] ... ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

James H. Coleman, Crippen v. Central Jersey Concrete Pipe Co… (2003)

“ If an injury or death is compensable under this ar-ticle, a person shall not be liable to anyone at common law or otherwise on account of such injury or death for any act or omission occurring while such person was in the same employ as the person injured or killed, except for intentional wrong. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

James H. Coleman, Crippen v. Central Jersey Concrete Pipe Co… (2003)

“ We are per-suaded that the Legislature never intended such con-duct to constitute a part of everyday industrial life and would not expect it to fall within the Workers' Compensation bar. Consequently, summary judgment was improperly granted.
IV. The judgment of the Appellate Division is reversed and the matter is remanded to the Law Division for trial.
Footnotes
↑ Under 29 C.F.R. § 1910.146 (b) , a permit-required confined space is: [A] confined space that has one or more of the following characteristics: (1) Contains or has a potential to contain a hazardous atmosphere ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

James H. Coleman, Crippen v. Central Jersey Concrete Pipe Co… (2003)

“ In addition, plaintiff argues that, contrary to Laidlow, supra, 170 N.J. at 621, 790 A.2d 884, the Appellate Division failed to consider the evidence from plaintiff's expert report.
Defendant, on the other hand, argues that the Appel-late Division properly applied the principles of Laid-low. Defendant contends [p406] that the facts do not rise to the level of an intentional wrong as they did in Laidlow because: (1) the record contains no evidence that defendant knew Crippen's accident was virtually certain to occur; (2) there were no prior incidents involving the hopper ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

James H. Coleman, Crippen v. Central Jersey Concrete Pipe Co… (2003)

“ The lockout device is “ [a] device that utilizes a positive means such as a lock....”Ibid.↑ Tagout is defined as “ [t] he placement of a tagout device on an energy isolating de-vice ... to indicate that the energy isolating device and the equipment being controlled may not be operated until the tagout device is removed.” ”

James H. Coleman

Summary

Quotes from Crippen v. Central Jersey Concrete Pipe Co… (James H. Coleman)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature