Kiara K. Hartwell

On July 11, 2014, Michael Alexander was struck and killed by a sweeper truck while working in an active construction zone on the New Jersey Turnpike. Northeast Sweepers owned the truck, which was driven by Christopher Hackett. Crisdel Group, Inc. was the decedent’s employer and was hired as the general contractor. HAKS Engineers, Architects and Land Surveyors, P.C. was retained by New Jersey Transit Authority to provide “professional services” for the resurfacing project, including supervision to ensure compliance. John Schweppenheiser, a HAKS employee and licensed professional engineer, was the project manager. HAKS then subcontracted the construction inspection services to Johnson, Mirmiran & Thompson, Inc. (JMT). Lawrence Fink, a JMT employee and licensed professional engineer, was the supervisor. 

Christopher Hackett drove his sweeper around a milling machine and struck Alexander, who was taken to a hospital and passed away approximately a month later. While it was Crisdel’s practice to assign a dump truck to each sweeper truck, there was none near Hackett’s sweeper at the time of the accident. After the accident, OSHA cited Crisdel for violations; failure to provide a place of employment free from recognized hazards and to establish a pre-planned traffic pattern. It was noted to be a serious violation, but not willful or repeated. 

In October 2014, the plaintiffs filed a complaint, which they amended in January 2016 to add claims against HAKS and JMT. In the amended complaint, the plaintiffs alleged intentional wrongs, noting that HAKS and JMT were responsible for supervision of the site and that they had negligently supervised the project. Because Alexander and his estate received workers’ compensation benefits, Crisdel’s answer asserted the affirmative defense that the plaintiffs’ claims were barred by the Workers’ Compensation Act. HAKS’ answer demanded compliance with the affidavit of merit statute, and JMT’s answer made no reference, but did assert a general defense of failure to state a claim. 

In June 2017, HAKS and JMT moved to dismiss the claims for failure to serve affidavits of merit. After oral arguments, the trial court issued orders dismissing the claims, noting the negligence was in their professional capacities as engineers, therefore, affidavits of merit were needed. The plaintiffs then filed a motion for reconsideration and submitted two affidavits from professional engineers, who certified that the work HAKS and JMT performed only involved supervision, not professional engineering services. The trial court denied the motion for reconsideration in September 2017. 

After the Appellate Division granted leave to appeal, the orders dismissing the claims against HAKS and JMT were reversed for a more complete record on whether the claims required the affidavit of merit requirement. On remand, additional expert discovery was performed, and all parties produced more expert reports. In April 2018, Crisdel moved for summary judgment, and after oral arguments, the trial court granted summary judgment as the plaintiffs failed to produce evidence that Crisdel committed an intentional wrong as this was the type of accident that occurred in constructions areas. 

In May 2019, HAKS and JMT moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiffs’ claims involved professional engineering service malpractice claims. The trial court agreed and granted summary judgment, noting the expert reports and deposition testimony revealed the duties of HAKS and JMT were within the practice of engineering. As such, the plaintiffs needed to submit an affidavit of merit and failure to do so required dismissal of their claims. 

The other defendants were all dismissed at various times. In December 2023, the plaintiffs resolved their claims against Northeast Sweepers and Hackett. The plaintiffs then appealed the June 22, 2018, order granting summary judgment to Crisdel and the July 26, 2019, orders granting summary judgment to JAKS and JMT.

The Appellate Division reviewed, under the de novo standard, and delved into the Workers’ Compensation Act as well as case law regarding intentional wrongs. While the plaintiffs identified six areas (work lighting, audible backup alarms, properly functioning mirrors, dedicated dump trucks, use of spotters and written traffic control plan) that were allegedly known and ignored by Crisdel, the Appellate Division found none of them were evidence of an intentional wrong within the meaning of the Workers’ Compensation Act. The Appellate Division also noted the OSHA violations were only “serious” and not “willful.” As such, the Appellate Division affirmed the grant of summary judgment to Cristel.

As for the summary judgment granted for HAKS and JMT, the Appellate Division reviewed the case law for a claim against a licensed professional covered by the affidavit of merit statute. The Appellate Division noted it was undisputed that both defendants were engineering and architectural companies and that HAKS was retained by New Jersey Transit Authority for professional engineering services. HAKS then retained JMT, and under the terms of the subcontract, all work performed by JMT was required to be done under the “direct supervision” of “licensed professional” engineers. Given the undisputed evidence showed HAKS and JMT were providing professional engineering services and the plaintiffs failed to timely serve affidavits of merit, the Appellate Division affirmed the grant of summary judgment to HAKS and JMT. 

---

 

_{What’s Hot in Workers’ Comp, Vol. 29, No. 8, August 2025, is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2025 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.}