Hurt on a Construction Site? What a Recent NJ Supreme Court Dismissal Means for Construction Accident Liability

In May 2026, the New Jersey Supreme Court dismissed the appeal in Campoverde v. NY-NJ Link Developer, LLC, a case about a laborer seriously injured on the Goethals Bridge replacement project. The Court did not rule on the merits. The Appellate Division’s decision, which went against the worker, was left in place. It is unpublished, so it is not binding precedent. The case still shows how these claims are won or lost, and what injured workers need to know early.

What Happened to Mr. Campoverde

In October 2017, Erwin Campoverde was working at the edge of a trench on the New Jersey side of the project. An excavator operator swung a heavy crane mat without any signal and struck him in the back. He was hired by the contractor building the bridge, so workers’ compensation covered his claim against his direct employer. He also sued the companies above that contractor: the developer that hired it, the developer’s owners, and the Port Authority, which owns the bridge. The courts dismissed those claims before trial.

Where the Case Fell Short

The choice of law. Mr. Campoverde argued that New York law should apply, because New York’s Labor Law imposes strict liability on owners and contractors for certain construction injuries. New Jersey’s law is far less favorable to workers. The courts held that New Jersey law governed, because the injury, his home, and his hiring all took place in New Jersey.

New Jersey's “no duty” rule. Under New Jersey law, companies above a subcontractor are generally not responsible for injuries to the subcontractor’s employees. There are three main exceptions: the company controlled how the work was done, it knowingly hired an incompetent contractor, or the work was inherently dangerous. The court found the record did not support any of them. It noted the contractor ran the site, and the companies above it were investors or owners with limited involvement. Prior OSHA violations cited were mostly unrelated to the project or the contractor.

A dismissal like this one does not mean injured workers cannot ever recover. The facts matter and in this case the Court applied them to the location of the accident, the relationship of the parties to the duty of safety on a construction site and other factors. Often times, these facts are not known at the onset of the case and are only determined after the lawsuit was filed and the attorneys conducted discovery. Even so, the legal complexities that follow are often necessary to be sided on appeal.

This post is for general information only and is not legal advice. Images are for illustrative purposes only. Every case depends on its own facts, and past results do not guarantee a similar outcome.