Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2015 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New Jersey courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Straley v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1998See Straley v. United States, 887 F.Supp. 728, 743 (D.N.J.1995); Congiusti v. Ingersoll Rand Co., 306 N.J.Super. 126 , 135 n. 1, 703 A.2d 340 (App.Div. 1997); Fabian, supra, 258 N.J.Super. at 277-78 , 609 A.2d 487 ; see also Dreier, Goldman & Katz, New Jersey Products Liability and Toxic Torts Law § 14:3-2 at 311 (1996) (“Note that even though the conduct of the person injured in the workplace may not be used to show negligence under the Suter rule now embodied in the statutory exception, such conduct may be admissible ... on the issue of proximate cause, or a defendant may wish to show how th 1998See Straley v. United States, 887 F.Supp. 728, 743 (D.N.J.1995); Congiusti v. Ingersoll Rand Co., 306 N.J.Super. 126 , 135 n. 1, 703 A.2d 340 (App.Div. 1997); Fabian, supra, 258 N.J.Super. at 277-78 , 609 A.2d 487 ; see also Dreier, Goldman & Katz, New Jersey Products Liability and Toxic Torts Law § 14:3-2 at 311 (1996) (“Note that even though the conduct of the person injured in the workplace may not be used to show negligence under the Suter rule now embodied in the statutory exception, such conduct may be admissible ... on the issue of proximate cause, or a defendant may wish to show how th | 1 | 1 |
Johansen v. Makita U.S.A., Inc.green2 sentences1992See Johansen v. Makita USA, Inc., 128 N.J. at 103 , 607 A. 2d 637 . 1992See Johansen v. Makita USA, Inc., 128 N.J. at 103 , 607 A. 2d 637 . | 1 | 1 |
Green v. Sterling Extruder Corp.green2 sentences1991See Green v. Sterling Extruder Corp., 95 N.J. 263, 270 , 471 A. 2d 15 (1984) indicating some question concerning this aspect of the Suter rule). 1991See Green v. Sterling Extruder Corp., 95 N.J. 263, 270 , 471 A. 2d 15 (1984) indicating some question concerning this aspect of the Suter rule). | 1 | 1 |
Cepeda v. Cumberland Engineering Company, Inc.red2 sentences1985The Suter rule was intended as a rejection of the court's then-recent statements in Cepeda v. Cumberland Engineering Co., Inc., 76 N.J. 152, 188 (1978), that Bexiga was limited "to those cases where there was no `indication that the unsafety of *528 the machine was known' to the employee." 81 N.J. at 167 . 1985The Suter rule was intended as a rejection of the court's then-recent statements in Cepeda v. Cumberland Engineering Co., Inc., 76 N.J. 152, 188 (1978), that Bexiga was limited "to those cases where there was no `indication that the unsafety of *528 the machine was known' to the employee." 81 N.J. at 167 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Jersey. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Tirrell v. Navistar Intern., Inc.
green
2 sentences1999Accordingly, "by the Legislature's use of the term `workplace injuries,' any limitation of the Suter principle to a factory setting would now clearly be inappropriate." Id. at 401, 591 A. 2d 643 . 1999Defendant is of the mistaken belief that Tirrell , "ruled that ... comparative negligence must be barred in all workplace settings." To the contrary, the court there expressly stated that such a ruling "would require us to reconsider the Suter rule, an action which the court has shunned since 1979." Tirrell v. Navistar Intern., Inc., 248 N.J.Super. at 401 , 591 A. 2d 643 . | 2 | 1999–2015 |
Crumb v. Black & Decker (US, Inc.)
green
2 sentences1999After quoting Suter 's holding, we stated that the "essence of the Suter rule is that the employee had no meaningful choice." Ibid. 1999After quoting Suter 's holding, we stated that the "essence of the Suter rule is that the employee had no meaningful choice." Ibid. | 2 | 1991–1999 |
Kane v. Hartz Mountain Industries
green
2 sentences2015Defendant contends that the Suter rule applies only in products liability cases, and that the Appellate Division’s extension of the Suter rule to this case contradicts Kane, supra, 278 N.J.Super. at 150 , 650 A.2d 808 . 2015Defendant contends that the Suter rule applies only in products liability cases, and that the Appellate Division’s extension of the Suter rule to this case contradicts Kane, supra, 278 N.J.Super. at 150 , 650 A.2d 808 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Tirrell v. Navistar Intern., Inc.
green
2 sentences2015Kane, supra, 278 N.J.Super. at 150 , 650 A.2d 808 (citing Tirrell v. Navistar Int’l, Inc., 248 N.J.Super. 390, 401 , 591 A.2d 643 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 126 N.J. 390 , 599 A.2d 166 (1991)). 2015Kane, supra, 278 N.J.Super. at 150 , 650 A.2d 808 (citing Tirrell v. Navistar Int’l, Inc., 248 N.J.Super. 390, 401 , 591 A.2d 643 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 126 N.J. 390 , 599 A.2d 166 (1991)). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Congiusti v. Ingersoll-Rand Co.
green
2 sentences1998See Straley v. United States, 887 F.Supp. 728, 743 (D.N.J.1995); Congiusti v. Ingersoll Rand Co., 306 N.J.Super. 126 , 135 n. 1, 703 A.2d 340 (App.Div. 1997); Fabian, supra, 258 N.J.Super. at 277-78 , 609 A.2d 487 ; see also Dreier, Goldman & Katz, New Jersey Products Liability and Toxic Torts Law § 14:3-2 at 311 (1996) (“Note that even though the conduct of the person injured in the workplace may not be used to show negligence under the Suter rule now embodied in the statutory exception, such conduct may be admissible ... on the issue of proximate cause, or a defendant may wish to show how th 1998See Straley v. United States, 887 F.Supp. 728, 743 (D.N.J.1995); Congiusti v. Ingersoll Rand Co., 306 N.J.Super. 126 , 135 n. 1, 703 A.2d 340 (App.Div. 1997); Fabian, supra, 258 N.J.Super. at 277-78 , 609 A.2d 487 ; see also Dreier, Goldman & Katz, New Jersey Products Liability and Toxic Torts Law § 14:3-2 at 311 (1996) (“Note that even though the conduct of the person injured in the workplace may not be used to show negligence under the Suter rule now embodied in the statutory exception, such conduct may be admissible ... on the issue of proximate cause, or a defendant may wish to show how th | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Fabian v. Minster MacH. Co., Inc.
green
2 sentences1998See Straley v. United States, 887 F.Supp. 728, 743 (D.N.J.1995); Congiusti v. Ingersoll Rand Co., 306 N.J.Super. 126 , 135 n. 1, 703 A.2d 340 (App.Div. 1997); Fabian, supra, 258 N.J.Super. at 277-78 , 609 A.2d 487 ; see also Dreier, Goldman & Katz, New Jersey Products Liability and Toxic Torts Law § 14:3-2 at 311 (1996) (“Note that even though the conduct of the person injured in the workplace may not be used to show negligence under the Suter rule now embodied in the statutory exception, such conduct may be admissible ... on the issue of proximate cause, or a defendant may wish to show how th 1998See Straley v. United States, 887 F.Supp. 728, 743 (D.N.J.1995); Congiusti v. Ingersoll Rand Co., 306 N.J.Super. 126 , 135 n. 1, 703 A.2d 340 (App.Div. 1997); Fabian, supra, 258 N.J.Super. at 277-78 , 609 A.2d 487 ; see also Dreier, Goldman & Katz, New Jersey Products Liability and Toxic Torts Law § 14:3-2 at 311 (1996) (“Note that even though the conduct of the person injured in the workplace may not be used to show negligence under the Suter rule now embodied in the statutory exception, such conduct may be admissible ... on the issue of proximate cause, or a defendant may wish to show how th | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Suter v. San Angelo Foundry & MacHine Company
green
2 sentences1985The Suter rule was intended as a rejection of the court's then-recent statements in Cepeda v. Cumberland Engineering Co., Inc., 76 N.J. 152, 188 (1978), that Bexiga was limited "to those cases where there was no `indication that the unsafety of *528 the machine was known' to the employee." 81 N.J. at 167 . 1985The Suter rule was intended as a rejection of the court's then-recent statements in Cepeda v. Cumberland Engineering Co., Inc., 76 N.J. 152, 188 (1978), that Bexiga was limited "to those cases where there was no `indication that the unsafety of *528 the machine was known' to the employee." 81 N.J. at 167 . | 1 | 1985–1985 |