## Facts

- A contractor (Glenwal Co., Inc.) erected a temporary elevated catwalk over a deep trench using four-by-fours laid across the cut with planks placed on top.
- Charles E. McGrath, employed by an unrelated contractor on the same jobsite, used the catwalk while working.
- A plank up-ended, causing McGrath to fall through the catwalk into the trench and die.
- McGrath’s estate sued for wrongful death, alleging negligent construction or maintenance of the catwalk by Glenwal.
- A jury returned a verdict for the estate; the trial court entered judgment on the verdict.
- The Appellate Division affirmed, with a dissent, leading to an appeal as of right to the Supreme Court of New Jersey.

## Issues

1. Whether sufficient evidence supported submitting to the jury that Glenwal owed McGrath a duty of reasonable care regarding the catwalk and breached that duty.
2. Whether “assumption of risk” barred recovery, and whether instructions and analysis treating mere appreciation of danger as dispositive were legally erroneous.
3. Whether any error concerning “assumption of risk” warranted reversal or a new trial.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Jersey affirmed the judgment for the estate.
- The Court agreed there was adequate evidence for the jury to find duty and breach concerning the safety of the catwalk.
- The Court reaffirmed that “assumption of risk” is not an independent defense and must be analyzed as either lack of defendant negligence or plaintiff contributory negligence.
- The Court rejected the view that the decedent’s mere appreciation of danger would automatically bar recovery.
- Any instructional error on “assumption of risk” was not reversible because it operated against the plaintiff and did not prejudice Glenwal.

## Legal Principles

- A party that erects a temporary structure for foreseeable use by others at a worksite owes those users a duty of reasonable care in construction, maintenance, and (when required) warning.
- “Assumption of risk” is a misleading label; the case must be addressed only in terms of (a) defendant negligence and (b) plaintiff contributory negligence, each measured by the reasonably prudent person standard.
- A plaintiff’s awareness or appreciation of danger is relevant to contributory negligence but is not, by itself, a complete bar to recovery.
- An erroneous charge does not require reversal absent prejudice to the appealing party; error unfavorable to the prevailing party is generally harmless as to the appellant.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a wrongful-death verdict arising from a defective temporary catwalk, holding that the evidence supported jury findings on duty and breach and reiterating that “assumption of risk” is not a standalone defense and that knowledge of danger alone does not defeat recovery; any instructional misstatement was harmless to the appellant.


McGrath v. American Cyanamid Co., 196 A.2d 238 (N.J. 1963)