New Jersey Court: Injured Delivery Driver Can’t Collect Damages

By | April 9, 2008

A truck driver struck by a car while making an early-morning delivery stop at a New Jersey Taco Bell cannot collect damages from his employer because his injuries entitled him to workers’ compensation benefits, a two-judge panel of the state Superior Court has ruled.

The decision affirmed a lower court’s earlier ruling in the suit brought by truck driver Joseph Dadura Jr. against hie employer, McLane Co. Inc., a company wholly owned by Wal-Mart Stores Inc.

A car with a sleeping driver hit Dadura while he was unloading food from his truck, which was double-parked on Bergenline Avenue in West New York, New Jersey in January 2003, according to court documents.

Dadura had turned on the truck’s four-way lights but did not set up traffic cones, flags or other safety equipment since none had been issued by his employer. He had also not been trained on how to make deliveries at that stop, he said in court filings.

In his suit, Dadura maintained that he had repeatedly warned his supervisors of the dangers he faced while having to double-park the truck for deliveries at the Taco Bell. Those warnings went unheeded, Dadura asserted, and he was threatened with firing if he refused to continue the deliveries.

He had sued Wal-Mart and Mclane, and also the Taco Bell and its owners, alleging their liability for the serious injuries he sustained. He argued the delivery company should have realized the high likelihood of his injuries occurring and its failure to take steps to prevent them constituted gross negligence on its part.

Dadura did not, however, sue the driver of the car – who was given three years probation for his role in the crash. In 2006, his claims against the Taco Bell were dismissed.

In dismissing Dadura’s claims against Wal-Mart and McLane, the judges said there was not enough evidence in the case to show the companies “deliberately intended to harm (Dadura) or knew that the consequences of its inaction were substantially certain to result in harm” – an exception to the state’s workers’ compensation law which might have entitled him to damages.

Latest Comments

  • May 20, 2008 at 7:36 am
    Denise says:
    Eloquently said and I agree with you! Apparently, there are egomaniacs on this site who think their way of thinking is the onlyn way. That's why our country is in the shape it... read more
  • May 20, 2008 at 7:27 am
    jffmaryann says:
    It seems to me that when an individual is dispatched to do a job whether it is fixing an appliance or making a provision delivery he should be protected by the laws of our cou... read more
  • April 10, 2008 at 5:03 am
    lastbat says:
    Actually the only monopolistic state on the list was Washington; Oregon and Idaho are free-market states for W/C. The problem for those of us on the consumer end of workers' c... read more
See all comments

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


More News
More News Features