Plaintiff Wiggins Plastics, Inc. sued the County of Passaic and its contractor Assuncao Brothers, Inc. (“Assuncao”) for damages claimed to its property following the effects of Hurricane Ida. Plaintiffs claimed that their properties were damaged due to the negligent acts related to a bridge replacement project, contracted by the County of Passaic to defendant Assuncao Brothers. Plaintiffs alleged that the County was vicariously liable for its supervisory role over its contractor. The issue in Wiggins Plastics, Inc. v. County of Passaic, 2025 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 224 (Law Div. Feb 6, 2025) was whether the County was immune from vicarious liability for the negligent acts of its independent contractor under the Tort Claims Act.
The County had engaged Assuncao as an independent contractor in the Kingsland Road Bridge replacement project. Plaintiffs alleged that the effects of Hurricane Ida caused flooding and subsequent damages which, in part, were due to the negligent acts related to this bridge replacement project.
The County filed for a summary judgment dismissal, arguing that it cannot be held vicariously liable for the alleged negligent acts of its independent contractor. Under the Tort Claims Act, public entities can be held vicariously liable for the wrongful acts of their employees (N.J.S.A. 59:2-2(a)). However, the Tort Claims Act expressly excludes independent contractors from the definition of “public employee” under Section N.J.S.A. 59:1-3. Further, the trial court, in deciding the motion for summary judgment, noted that this distinction as to liability has been consistently upheld by the courts, finding that public entities are not liable for the actions of its independent contractors.
In this case, plaintiffs did concede that Assuncao was an independent contractor. The court found that plaintiffs did not identify any applicable exception that would impose liability on the County, “nor have they presented specific facts that could establish vicarious liability and preclude summary judgment at this stage.” Further, they have not demonstrated that the County had a non-delegable duty that would impose liability despite Assuncao’s status as an independent contractor.
For these reasons, the trial court found that the County was entitled to summary judgment for Plaintiffs’ claims against it which were based upon vicarious liability for Assuncao’s actions.
