1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. N.J.
  4. 270 N.J.
  5. 270 N.J. Super. 350 (1994)
 

MASTICE v. INTERSTATE INDUS. CORP.

270 N.J. Super. 350 (1994)

637 A.2d 211

ANTHONY MASTICE, SR., AS ADMINISTRATOR AD PROSEQUENDUM FOR THE HEIRS-AT-LAW, AND THE ESTATE OF ANTHONY MASTICE, JR., DECEASED, INFANT AND INDIVIDUALLY; AND JEANNE AVELLA MASTICE, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. INTERSTATE INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT, AND MOBIL OIL CORPORATION; L & T CONTRACTING COMPANY, INC.; BAY CRANE SERVICES, INC.; XYZ CORPORATION (SAID NAME BEING FICTITIOUS, TRUE NAME UNKNOWN); JOSEPH MASTICE; AND JOHN DOES I-X (SAID NAMES BEING FICTITIOUS, TRUE NAMES UNKNOWN), DEFENDANTS. INTERSTATE INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF, v. PENNSYLVANIA MANUFACTURERS INSURANCE COMPANY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT, AND EMAR LTD., INC., AND EMAR GROUP, INC., DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS, AND COMMERCE & INDUSTRY INSURANCE COMPANY; UNITED INSURANCE CONSULTANTS; NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA.; STEVEN GERBER; STEVEN GERBER, INC.; AND ABC CORPORATIONS 1 THROUGH 100; JOHN DOES 1 THROUGH 100 (FICTITIOUS NAMES FOR PRESENTLY UNKNOWN CORPORATIONS, PERSONS, AND ENTITIES), DEFENDANTS.

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

Decided February 8, 1994.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Robert J. McKenna argued the cause for appellant Interstate Industrial Corporation (Philip M. Lustbader, David Lustbader and Waters, McPherson, McNeill, attorneys; Nicholas I. Filocco and Glenn A. Farrell, of counsel; John N. Holly, on the brief).

James P. Lisovicz argued the cause for appellant Pennsylvania Manufacturers Insurance Company (Sellar, Richardson, Stuart & Chisholm, attorneys).

Michael J. Maggiano argued the cause for respondents Mastice (Michael Maggiano and Associates, attorneys; Mr. Maggiano and Adam Paskoff, on the brief).

O'Meara & Hight, attorneys for respondents Emar Ltd. and Emar Group (Mary L. Cole, on letter relying on brief filed on behalf of appellant Pennsylvania Manufacturers Insurance Company).

Before Judges J.H. COLEMAN and MUIR, Jr.

The opinion of the court was delivered by MUIR, Jr., J.A.D.

The only issue raised by this appeal is one of choice of law between the workers' compensation laws of New Jersey and New York, which differ with respect to the right of an injured minor employee to maintain a common law negligence action against his employer. The New York law affords the minor no common law negligence cause of action against the employer while the New Jersey law makes it an elective option...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases