A recent court decision highlights the complex interplay between workplace safety and legal protections for employees. Jonathan Little, a former employee of a steel manufacturer, faced a significant legal setback when his appeal was denied by the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division. The court upheld a previous summary judgment in favor of Little’s employer, VDM Metals USA, LLC, dismissing his claims related to a workplace injury he sustained in April 2020. This decision was rendered on November 25, 2025.
Jonathan Little filed his complaint against VDM Metals USA, LLC and its parent company Acerinox Group in the Superior Court of New Jersey’s Law Division in Morris County under Docket No. L-0687-22. The case revolved around an incident where Little fell while unloading steel from a trailer at VDM’s Florham Park facility. Despite wearing protective gear, he suffered a head injury that impaired his memory of the event. Little alleged that the company’s negligence and failure to provide adequate training and safety measures led to his accident.
The court documents reveal that on the day of the accident, Little was asked by his supervisor Frendly Blas to assist with unloading steel due to staffing shortages caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. After removing the steel from an open “flatrack” trailer, Little fell while exiting it—a fall that could have been prevented with proper use of safety equipment like the Rollastep Mobile Platform available nearby but not utilized at that time.
Little’s lawsuit claimed negligence and gross negligence on part of VDM Metals USA, arguing that their actions amounted to an intentional wrong which should allow him to bypass the Workers’ Compensation Act’s exclusivity provision. He contended that VDM failed in providing necessary training and operated without sufficient staff to ensure safe operations. However, both OSHA reports and testimony indicated that complacency rather than intent led to non-use of safety equipment during smaller tasks.
In its ruling, the trial court found no evidence suggesting VDM had acted with substantial certainty that harm would occur—an essential element required to establish an intentional wrong under New Jersey law as defined by precedents such as Laidlow v. Hariton Mach. Co., 170 N.J. 602 (2002). The appellate judges agreed with this assessment; they concluded there was insufficient proof showing defendant’s conduct went beyond ordinary industrial risks or legislative intent for immunity under workers’ compensation laws.
Ultimately seeking damages outside workers’ compensation channels proved futile for Little; he could not demonstrate VDM’s actions were egregious enough to warrant civil liability beyond statutory remedies provided by state law designed primarily for swift resolution within administrative frameworks rather than prolonged litigation processes typical in tort cases involving personal injuries.
Representing Jonathan Little were attorneys Sean M. Pena and Michelle Yang from Weiner Law Group LLP while James G. Serritella represented VDM Metals USA through Biancamano & Di Stefano PC law firm before Judges Rose and Torregrossa-O’Connor presiding over appellate proceedings under Case ID A-0561-24.
Source: A056124_Little_v_VDM_Metals_USA_LLC_Complaint_New_Jersey_Superior_Court_of_Appeals.pdf
