Not a Lexis+ subscriber? Try it out for free.
LexisNexis® CLE On-Demand features premium content from partners like American Law Institute Continuing Legal Education and Pozner & Dodd. Choose from a broad listing of topics suited for law firms, corporate legal departments, and government entities. Individual courses and subscriptions available.
A tort action filed by a worker who had been assigned to a firm that utilized forklifts in its warehouse area cannot proceed since the worker's exclusive remedy was pursuant to the New Jersey Workers' Compensation Act, held a state appellate court. The staffing agreement executed by the staffing company and the borrowing employer indicated the latter assumed control of the activities of the leased employees. The worker was injured while riding on the back of the forklift as it was being operated by another worker. Evidence suggested that although this practice violated OSHA standards, it was nevertheless common at the warehouse. The court also agreed the injured worker had not stated a claim for intentional injury under New Jersey's "substantial certainty" rule.
Thomas A. Robinson, J.D., the Feature National Columnist for the LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation eNewsletter, is co-author of Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law (LexisNexis).
LexisNexis Online Subscribers: Citations below link to Lexis Advance.
See Hocutt v. Minda Supply Co., 2020 N.J. Super. LEXIS 201 (Aug. 7, 2020)
See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 100.01.
Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law
For a more detailed discussion of the case, see
Sign up for the free LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation enewsletter at www.lexisnexis.com/wcnews.