Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Crippen v. Central Jersey Concrete Pipe Co.

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Decided May 22, 2003Published

1ConcurrenceVerniero, J.

This is a close case. I join the Court’s opinion largely based on plaintiffs allegation that the defendant employer attempted to deceive federal regulators into believing that it had abated certain safety violations prior to the date of Harold Crippen’s work-related death. I write separately to express my view that absent that allegation, plaintiff would not be entitled to proceed in the Law Division.

The New Jersey Workers’ Compensation Act, N.J.S.A. 34:15-1 to -128 (the Act), seeks to protect injured workers from becoming mired in costly and protracted litigation that could delay payment of…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Millison v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1985
  2. Laidlow v. Hariton MacH. Co., Inc.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 2002
  3. Mull v. Zeta Consumer ProductsSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2003
  4. Crippen v. Central Jersey Concrete Pipe Co.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2001

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API