Majestic Realty Associates, Inc. v. Toti Contracting Co.
Supreme Court of New Jersey
30 N.J. 425, 153 A.2d 321 (1959)
- Written by Ronald Quirk, JD
Facts
Majestic Realty Associates, Inc. (Majestic) (plaintiff) and Bohen’s Inc. (Bohen’s) (plaintiff) sued Toti Contracting Co. (Toti) (defendant) and the Parking Authority of the City of Paterson, NJ (Authority) (defendant) for damages caused to a building owned by Majestic. The Authority contracted with Toti to demolish a number of structures on the street where Majestic’s building was located. A Toti employee acted negligently in the demolition of the structure adjacent to Majestic’s building, which resulted in severe damage to Majestic’s property. At trial, expert witnesses attested to the fact that building demolition is very hazardous work, and that Toti’s failure to follow safe and proper procedures caused the accident that damaged Majestic’s building. The trial court acknowledged that the demolition work was hazardous by nature, but did not constitute a “nuisance per se.” Hence, the trial court ruled that since the Authority did not have control over the demolition performed by Toti, an independent contractor, the Authority could not be held liable for Toti’s negligence. The Appellate Division reversed and found that the Authority was liable for the damage caused by Toti.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Francis, J)
What to do next…
Here's why 797,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.