MAJESTIC REALTY ASSOCIATES, INC. V. TOTI CONTRACTING CO.
153 A.2d 321 (1959)


PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiffs, a building owner and a tenant, filed suit against defendants, a parking authority and a demolition contractor (DC), for damage sustained by the owner's building as a result of the demolition of an adjacent building. The trial court dismissed the action against the authority. The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, reversed the dismissal and remanded for a new trial.

FACTS:Majestic (P) owned a building on Main Street and Bohen was its tenant on the first floor. The Authority began to acquire properties to establish a public parking area. This required Authority to demolish several buildings. Authority entered into a contact with Toti to do the work. The structure next to P's was at least 20 feet higher than P's and the abutting walls ran right up against each other. It was established by expert testimony that Toti did not properly remove the building. Toti used a wrecking ball and each time the ball would strike, debris would fly. If the operator had used the ball properly, he would have chipped away at the top in a manner that would have sent the debris flying away from P's building. The eventual result was that a 15 by 40 foot section fell on P's roof causing a 25 by 40 foot break therein. The crane operator was heard to admit that he "goofed."


ISSUE: Is a property owner who hires a demolition contractor liable for damages caused by the contractor's negligence if the activity is not inherently dangerous?

RULE: Ordinarily, if a person engages a contractor, who conducts an independent business by means of his own employees, to do work not itself a nuisance, the person is not liable for the contractor's negligent acts in performing the contract.

HOLDING:The Superior Court, Appellate Division, reversed the judgment and remanded the matter for a new trial, but, as a judge dissented, the matter came before the Supreme Court as of right for final determination. The Supreme Court, Francis, J., held that evidence on issue of whether demolition was inherently dangerous so that authority would be liable if its contractor had been negligent in failing to take necessary special precautions, presented question for jury.


ANALYSIS: The matter was before the state supreme court for a final determination. The trial court dismissed the action against the authority on the grounds that the DC was an independent contractor for whose negligence defendant parking authority could not be held responsible. The jury returned favorable verdicts to plaintiffs on defendant demolition contractor's liability. Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the action against the authority. The supreme court affirmed the appellate division decision. The supervisory interest of the authority related to the result accomplished, not to the means by which it was accomplished. The demolition work was inherently dangerous, thus subjecting the authority to a nondelegable duty to ensure that care was taken in the demolition process, and the question of liability regarding that duty was one for the jury to make.