Sykes v. Propane Power Corp.

541 A.2d 271 (1988)

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

Sykes, a McKesson employee, sustained fatal injuries when a chemical distillation unit in the plant exploded. According to the accident report, the 'T-1' distillation unit was being used to recover dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) from an industrial waste product 'stock' at the time the explosion occurred. The probable cause of this explosion was determined to be 'excessive acidity [in the stock] leading to an uncontrollable decomposition of DMSO . . .' in the unit reboiler. In large part, the accident was attributed to the operators' failure to make regular PH analyses of the stock and to take prompt corrective measures when the system began to malfunction. Barbara Sykes (P) sued in negligence and strict liability in tort against McKesson, Sullivan Engineering and Sullivan, among others, to recover damages for the wrongful death of Sykes, her cohabitant of 22 years and father of their four children. P and Sykes held themselves out as married, but were never married in a formal or religious ceremony; they owned certain property in common as 'husband and wife'; they resided together and lived as husband and wife; P bore four children to William Sykes, and they and their offspring resided together; P was named as spouse and beneficiary on a policy of insurance of William Sykes; P was dependent on William Sykes. P and William Sykes had lived together for 24 years since P was 18-years-old. P gave birth to William Sykes' namesake, William Lewis Sykes, Jr., and one of their three daughters was named after Barbara Sykes and Barbara Sykes' sister, Ann. All of the children in common were given the surname 'Sykes,' as is the usual practice in the case of children born in wedlock. P did not list herself as a spouse, heir or next of kin in her complaint for administration filed in the Surrogate's Court. William Sykes was also described as 'single -- never married.' Ds moved for summary judgment. The court granted the motion, holding that Sullivan’s work was not causally related to the explosion. In short, he found that Sullivan had been engaged solely for the purpose of preparing the drawings and documents required by the DEP and had not been hired to go through the plant as a safety engineer and advise McKesson about correcting hazards unrelated to environmental concerns. Ds, McKesson and Zook Enterprises, Inc. filed, motions to strike P's individual damages claims on the ground that although she was living with Sykes as man and wife, they were not legally married. A different judge granted these motions and dismissed all damage claims asserted by P individually against the remaining defendants. He held that P could not 'recover (1) for loss of consortium because there was no marriage relationship; or (2) for her death claims because she falls outside any applicable classification under N.J.S.A. 2A:31-4 et seq. P appealed from the summary judgment entered in favor of Sullivan Engineering and Sullivan, the subsequent order denying her motion for reconsideration and from the orders dismissing her individual damage claims. P has been totally disabled since suffering a stroke in 1976 and requires continuous medical care.