## Facts

- AMI–DDC, Inc. (AMI) operated a rolling mill equipped with a safety “nip guard” designed to prevent an operator’s hands from being drawn into the rollers.
- AMI did not keep the guard engaged during normal operations; it was engaged only during OSHA inspections and then disengaged afterward for speed and convenience.
- Rudolph Laidlow operated the mill for roughly 12–13 years under this practice.
- Laidlow experienced multiple “near misses” in which his glove was caught by the rollers; he reported these incidents to management, including his supervisor, Richard Portman.
- In 1992, Laidlow’s glove was caught and his hand was pulled into the rollers, causing severe injuries, including partial amputation of most fingers.
- Laidlow and his spouse sued, alleging AMI’s conduct fit the “intentional wrong” exception to workers’ compensation exclusivity; the trial court granted summary judgment to AMI and Portman, and the Appellate Division affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether an employer’s deliberate disengagement of a safety device on dangerous machinery for production reasons—while engaging it only to mislead OSHA and despite repeated reported near misses—can satisfy the “intentional wrong” exception to workers’ compensation exclusivity under N.J. Stat. Ann. § 34:15-8.
2. Whether the record, viewed favorably to plaintiffs, created a jury question on “substantial certainty” of injury and whether the circumstances were outside the workers’ compensation bargain.

## Decision

- The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Division and vacated summary judgment for AMI and Portman.
- The Court held that plaintiffs produced sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find an “intentional wrong,” allowing a civil tort claim to proceed despite the Workers’ Compensation Act.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Workers’ compensation is generally the exclusive remedy for workplace injuries, except where the employer commits an “intentional wrong” under N.J. Stat. Ann. § 34:15-8.
- The “intentional wrong” inquiry applies a two-prong test:
  - Conduct prong: whether the employer knew its conduct was substantially certain to result in injury or death.
  - Context prong: whether, in the employment setting, the injury and the manner of its infliction were outside what the Legislature intended to immunize through workers’ compensation.
- “Substantial certainty” is more demanding than negligence, gross negligence, or recklessness; it does not require proof the employer desired the injury.
- OSHA violations do not, by themselves, establish an intentional wrong, but may be probative when combined with other evidence (e.g., deliberate disabling of a safety device, repeated warnings or near misses, and concealment from regulators).
- On summary judgment, courts must view evidence and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party; close factual questions about substantial certainty and context are for the jury where reasonable jurors could differ.

## Conclusion

The court held that evidence of systematically running dangerous machinery with a safety guard disengaged for production reasons, engaging the guard only during OSHA inspections, and continuing the practice despite reported near misses could permit a jury to find an employer “intentional wrong,” removing the case from workers’ compensation exclusivity and requiring trial proceedings.


Laidlow v. Hariton Mach. Co., 790 A.2d 884 (N.J. 2002)