Puckrein v. Ati Transport, Inc

897 A.2d 1034 (N.J. 2006)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

BFI-NY was one of Browning-Ferris Industries’ nearly 200 North American wholly-owned subsidiaries. Pursuant to two contracts with the City of New York (the City), BFI-NY collected and hauled the City residents’ waste and recyclable materials to Brooklyn. BFI-NY used independent carriers to transport recyclables and solid waste across state lines. BFI-NY contracted with World Carting as an independent contractor to haul glass residue and solid waste. World Carting warrant[ed] that it [had] all federal, state or local permits and licenses required to perform the work. World Carting also agreed to maintain required insurance and to furnish BFI-NY with proof of insurance, as well as to indemnify BFI-NY. World Carting was not to subcontract the work without prior written approval from BFI-NY. World Carting’s liability insurance expired on April 15, 1998, two months before the accident, and BFI-NY had no updated information on file indicating that the insurance had been renewed. D trucks “show[ed] up for World Carting,” leading BFI-NY to believe that “they were the same company.” World Carting and D had the same address and leadership. Kevin and Alecia Puckrein (Ps) were killed when their automobile was struck by an unregistered and uninsured tractor-trailer with seriously defective brakes. The tractor-trailer was owned by ATI Transport, Inc., (D) and, at the time of the accident, had been transporting a load of glass residue for Browning-Ferris Industries of New York, Inc., (BFI-NY). BFI-NY had contracted with World Carting Corp., to transport the load and World Carting, in turn, had assigned its responsibilities to D. Ps sued Ds which included the driver, D, World Carting, John Stangle (the owner of ATI and World Carting), and BFI-NY. The trial judge dismissed the case against BFI-NY on summary judgment. Ps prevailed at trial, but those defendants were judgment proof. Ps appealed D’s summary judgment. The Appellate Division affirmed. It rejected P's claims that BFI-NY was D’s statutory employer; BFI-NY was liable for D’s negligence, or Ps were third party beneficiaries of the contract between BFI-NY and the City. This appeal resulted.