A dispute over responsibility for workplace safety was resolved when an appellate court affirmed that a municipality was not liable for injuries suffered by a contractor’s employee during construction work on public property. The ruling clarifies the limits of municipal oversight and contractor responsibility in construction projects involving public entities.
John Schmirsky and Kimberly Schmirsky filed an appeal with the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, after the Camden County Law Division granted summary judgment in favor of the Township of Winslow on March 19, 2026. The complaint stemmed from injuries John Schmirsky sustained after falling from a ladder while working as a carpenter on renovations at the Township Senior Center.
According to court documents, on March 20, 2020, the Township entered into a contract with Aliano Brothers General Contractors, Inc. to build an addition and renovate its senior center. John Schmirsky was employed by Aliano as a carpenter assigned to this project. The contract allowed the Township to attend project meetings about job safety and required Aliano’s equipment to be unused and safe. It also gave the Township authority to stop unsafe work or take corrective action if necessary.
On July 6, 2020, Schmirsky fell from an extension ladder while working at the senior center and suffered head injuries. He alleged that his fall was caused by a defective rubber shoe on the ladder foot which exposed metal and screw heads to the concrete floor, causing it to slip. No witnesses saw him fall; other workers reported hearing a loud noise before seeing him hit the floor.
In June 2022, Schmirsky initiated legal action against both the Township and Garrison Architects (the latter was later dismissed from litigation). In his deposition, he stated that he inspected his equipment daily but had not noticed any issues with the ladder prior to his accident except that it appeared used rather than new.
Schmirsky’s liability experts argued that dangerous conditions existed at the worksite due to inadequate fall protection in violation of Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations. They contended that the Township failed to properly supervise safety or enforce contractual obligations regarding equipment inspection and job site standards.
The Township denied liability in its answer to the complaint. After discovery concluded, it moved for summary judgment—a request granted by the trial court following oral argument. The trial judge explained that imposing active supervision duties on municipalities would effectively require them to act as general contractors: “What the plaintiff is seeking to do in this case is…to impose a duty on Winslow Township to actively supervise every aspect of the work.” The judge further noted there was no evidence showing that merely allowing municipalities some rights under contracts—such as attending meetings or inspecting sites—created such a duty.
On appeal, Schmirsky argued that as co-contractor or joint entity with Aliano, Winslow Township had contractual obligations for ensuring safe equipment and workplaces. He claimed these duties were breached when defective equipment was permitted onsite without proper supervision. He also asserted immunity under New Jersey’s Tort Claims Act should not apply because material facts existed showing township knowledge or creation of dangerous conditions related to his injury.
The appellate panel reviewed whether sufficient evidence existed showing Winslow retained control over construction methods or means—a key exception where general contractors may be liable for subcontractor negligence. Citing established law, including Tarabokia v. Structure Tone and Alloway v. Bradlees Inc., judges found no record evidence supporting claims that Winslow exercised such control or provided safety materials like ladders.
The opinion stated: “We reject this contention as no evidence in the record supports plaintiff’s argument that the Township retained control over any aspects of the project or provided…materials used for the project.” The panel determined Aliano remained responsible for employee safety and equipment provision throughout construction.
The court also addressed arguments based on OSHA violations but reiterated: “There is no duty of care based solely on a finding that OSHA regulations had been violated.” Instead, any such violations are only one factor among many considered under general negligence principles.
Because it found no duty owed by Winslow regarding ladder condition—a necessary element for negligence—the appellate division affirmed dismissal of all claims against Winslow with prejudice: “Plaintiff’s contention he has overcome…immunity from liability under [the Tort Claims Act] is moot.” Any remaining arguments were deemed insufficiently meritorious for further discussion.
Attorneys involved included Anthony Granato (Jarve Granato Starr LLC) representing appellants John and Kimberly Schmirsky, and Karyn Dobroskey Rienzi (Post & Schell PC) representing respondent Township of Winslow. The case was heard before Judges Sabatino and Bergman under Docket No. A-0917-24.
Source: A091724_Schmirsky_v_Township_of_Winslow_Opinion_New_Jersey_Superior_Court_of_Appeals.pdf
