Defigueiredo v. U.S. Metals Refining Co.

563 A.2d 50, 235 N.J. Super. 407, 1989 N.J. Super. LEXIS 317
New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division·Decided May 15, 1989·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiffs Francisco DeFigueiredo and Gerard Brignolle filed complaints against defendants U.S. Metals Refining Co., USMR AMAX Inc., AMAX Base Research and Development and AMAX Metals Group, alleging that they were injured as a result of defendants’ negligent operation and maintenance of the premises on which they operate the smelting and refining business in which plaintiffs are employed. The trial judge ruled that Worker’s Compensation is the exclusive remedy available to plaintiffs and that the dual capacity doctrine must be rejected in this context. Accordingly, he granted summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ negligence actions. We agree with this disposition. While the dual capacity doctrine may have viability in some circumstances, it is clearly inapplicable here, where the employee is injured during the course of his employment on the premises of his employer. We thus affirm [409] substantially for the reasons expressed by Judge Menza in his thoughtful opinion of August 5, 1988. 235 N.J.Super. 458.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Defigueiredo v. U.S. Metals Refining Co., 563 A.2d 50, 235 N.J. Super. 407, 1989 N.J. Super. LEXIS 317 (N.J. Ct. App. 1989).

563 A.2d 50 (Defigueiredo v. U.S. Metals Refining Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Holliday v. Personal Products Co.
939 F. Supp. 402 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1996)
Petrocco v. at & T Teletype, Inc.
642 A.2d 1072 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1994)
DeFigueiredo v. US METALS
563 A.2d 50 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1989)