## Facts

- A public parking authority acquired multiple properties in Paterson, New Jersey, and undertook demolition of several buildings to create a parking area.
- The authority contracted with Toti Contracting Co., Inc., a private demolition contractor, to perform the demolition work.
- The building being demolished adjoined Majestic Realty Associates, Inc.’s two-story building; the demolition structure was about one story higher, and the walls of the buildings abutted for roughly 40 feet.
- Majestic’s first floor and basement were leased to Bohen’s, Inc., which operated a dry-goods business.
- During demolition using a crane and wrecking ball, debris was propelled toward plaintiffs’ building rather than being removed with methods designed to keep debris away from the adjoining property.
- A large section of the adjoining building fell onto Majestic’s roof, causing substantial structural damage and damaging Bohen’s goods.
- Plaintiffs sued both the contractor and the public authority for property damage.

## Issues

1. Whether the public authority could be held liable for damage caused by an independent contractor’s negligent demolition when the work posed a special risk to adjoining property.
2. Whether the demolition constituted “inherently dangerous” work imposing a nondelegable duty on the hiring party, notwithstanding lack of control over the contractor’s methods.
3. Whether liability required proof of the authority’s own negligence or actual control, as opposed to liability based on the character of the work.

## Decision

- The trial court dismissed the claims against the public authority at the close of plaintiffs’ case, reasoning that the contractor was independent and the authority lacked control over methods; the jury returned verdicts for plaintiffs against the contractor.
- The Appellate Division reversed the dismissal and ordered a new trial as to the authority.
- The Supreme Court of New Jersey affirmed the Appellate Division, holding the authority liable for the contractor’s negligence.
- The Court concluded the demolition, under the circumstances presented, was inherently dangerous and therefore created a nondelegable duty owed by the authority to neighboring property owners and occupants.
- The Court rejected the view that absence of actual control over the demolition methods insulated the authority from liability.

## Legal Principles

- An employer is generally not liable for the negligence of an independent contractor, but exceptions apply when the contracted work is inherently dangerous or when law or public policy imposes a nondelegable duty.
- Work is “inherently dangerous” when it involves a recognizable risk of harm unless special precautions are taken; if such precautions are required, the hiring party must ensure reasonable care is exercised.
- The nondelegable-duty doctrine may impose liability on a hiring party without proof of the hiring party’s direct negligence or control over the contractor’s operative details.
- Inherently dangerous work triggering a nondelegable duty is distinct from “ultrahazardous” or “nuisance per se” activities that may impose strict liability; here, liability rested on failure to assure reasonable precautions against a foreseeable special risk.

## Conclusion

The court held that demolition immediately adjacent to occupied property in a congested area created a special, foreseeable risk requiring special precautions, making the duty to protect neighbors nondelegable; the public authority was therefore liable for the contractor’s negligent demolition despite the contractor’s independent status and the authority’s lack of direct control.


Majestic Realty Assocs., Inc. v. Toti Contracting Co., 30 N.J. 425, 153 A.2d 321 (N.J. 1959)