In a recent New Jersey Federal court decision, a homeowner was sued when a contractor’s employee was injured while using the contractor’s table saw in the course of remodeling the homeowner’s bathroom. The employee also sued the contractor and the saw manufacturer.  The claim against the saw manufacturer was settled.

The homeowner moved for summary judgment, arguing that there was no basis for imposing liability on the homeowner since he had not retained control of the manner or means of the work performed and his retention of general supervisory power over the work was insufficient for the imposition of liability.

Read More

The New Jersey Supreme Court in its 2015 decision in Kaye v. Rosefielde confirmed that an employer suing a disloyal employee could recover the compensation paid to the employee during the period of disloyalty, even if the disloyal conduct did not actually damage the employer. The court found that “disgorgement” is an equitable remedy derived from a principle of contract law, that where the employee breaches the duty of loyalty, which is “at the heart of the employment relationship”, the employee may not be entitled to keep the compensation paid by the employer during such breaches. It noted that disgorgement serves a deterrent purpose, letting a disloyal employee know that there is a serious financial consequence.

Read More

New Jersey has one of the most stringent residential tenant security laws in the nation.  First, the landlord can charge no more than 1 ½ times the monthly rental amount as a security deposit.  Next, s/he must deposit the money in an interest bearing account for the benefit of the tenant, and notify the tenant of the name and address of the bank where the deposit is kept. Absent such notice, the tenant may elect on written notice to the landlord to apply the security deposit to the rent.  If the landlord raises the rent in the future, the most s/he can collect as additional security is 10% of the original security deposit.

Read More

The New Jersey Supreme Court recently declined an opportunity to expand the “mode of operation” doctrine in a case involving a slip and fall of a customer in a KFC outlet.  It upheld the Appellate Division’s reversal of a $138,643 jury award against the restaurant, which it was alleged failed to maintain a wet floor on which the plaintiff fell on her way to the restroom.

Read More

A child who lost an eye due to being poked with a stick by a classmate walking home from school recently received a $600,000 settlement. The stick came from a pile of brush placed at the curb of a home that the children passed on the way home. The insurance company for the parents of the classmate paid their policy limits of $300,000.

Read More