Articles Posted in Premises Liability

Published on:

by

On August 1, 2005, a manual laborer was working on a construction site that was being operated on a military base. The objective of the construction was to renovate some military housing buildings that were run down. In order to renovate the buildings, the construction crew had to first remove all of the kitchen and bathroom appliances that were inside each of the units in the multi-unit buildings. The construction crew had a dumpster located outside of the buildings on the street that was available for them to put the debris from the renovation into. The construction team had been working in one of the buildings for several days and the manual laborer was tasked with the job of transporting the debris from inside the building out to the dumpster on the curb.

On that morning, the crew had filled one of the dumpsters and needed an additional empty one moved from farther down the street up to where the work was being done. The site supervisor instructed the laborer to get the dumpster and move it up. The dumpster was about to be moved when another construction contractor pulled a truck up in front of it. The site supervisor instructed the manual laborer to tell the driver of the truck to move the truck so that they could get to the dumpster. The laborer followed the instructions that he was given and then stepped backward away from the truck so that he could signal to the truck driver where to park. As he walked backward, he stepped on the top of a manhole cover. The cover was not properly in place and tilted up causing the man to fallinto the manhole. He sustained several severe injuries as a result of this workplace accident. He contends that he suffered from severe spinal injury as well as leg impairment.

He had to have several surgical procedures on his spine over the following year including bone grafts and fusions of his spine. He filed a personal injury lawsuit against both companies and the property owner because he contends that they were negligent in allowing the manhole cover to not be securely in place. In this case, there was no argument that the man sustained serious injury as defined by the Insurance Laws of New York. The problem for the court in this case was determining who was responsible for the spinal injury that the man had suffered that left him disabled and unable to work.

Continue reading

by
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

When a person is injured while on their jobs, the case is generally handled under the Worker’s Compensation Laws of the State of New York. However, under these laws, if the person is determined to have suffered from a grave brain injury, then the person is given leave to file a lawsuit against their employer, or in some cases, the property owner. In the case of people who work in the construction trade, it is important that they are given leave to pursue other avenues if they suffer from a personal injury that is severe while they are working on a job. One such incident involved a contractor who was working on a high ladder at the Park Terrace Gardens, Inc., in 2004.

He fell from the ladder and suffered from a brain injury. He contends that his brain injury was grave and so severe that he is unable to work. He filed a lawsuit against his employer and the property owner for monetary damages to help him maintain his home and family. The property owner countered his claim by stating that they did not believe that the man’s injury is grave as defined by the Worker’s Compensation laws of New York. In order to be considered a grave injury, the injury must be pervasive enough that it interferes with his ability to function on a daily basis. It must also be considered a permanent injury. The property owner contends that the injury is not permanent in nature and that there is a chance that the man will recover.

The man’s employer filed a motion to grant him summary judgment denying the claims of the property owner that they should have common-law indemnification. The court agreed and reversed the previous decision. The property owner also filed a motion for summary judgment releasing him from any liability in the lawsuit because of contractual indemnification. The property owner claims that the subcontractor who was the employer of the injured worker, had signed a contract with the property owner when he started the work on the property. He claimed that in that contract was specific wording that released him from any liability associated to any injuries incurred by any of the subcontractor’s workers. The court reviewed the copy of the contract that was provided by the property owner and agreed that the wording was specific to remove the liability from the property owner. Further, the employer moved that the evidence produced at trial by the owners of the property, demonstrated that the injured worker’s injury was not permanent. The evidence demonstrated that the brain injury was treatable and did not prevent him from conducting his daily activities. They also contend that the brain injury does not prevent this employee from becoming employed again in the future.

Continue reading

by
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

On June 30, 1967, a railroad worker of the Long Island Railroad, slipped while performing his job on a Long Island Railroad train. When he slipped, his legs went under the steel wheels and were amputated from his body. His wife filed suit on his behalf while he was still in the hospital, just 30 days following the double amputation of his legs. She made notice to the railroad of the suit also within 30 days of the injury. It was only then that she found out that the Long Island Railroad was part of a silent amendment. She attempted to get a response from the railroad to her personal injury claims and was summarily ignored until 10 months following the accident. At that point, they advised her that the silent amendment prohibited her from filing a personal injury lawsuit against them after eight months following the injury. The wife informed the railroad that she had made notice to them of the suit within 30 days of the injury which was well before the eight month limit.

She also challenged the eight- month limit on its legality. An eight-month limit is generally only applicable to municipalities. The Long Island Railroad is a privately owned organization and is not subject to the benefits of a municipality in her contention. Further, there was no notice that they should receive this special treatment during any type of liability suit. The wife made a motion to the court that the personal injury lawsuit should be accepted because she filed the summons and complaint within the 90 day stipulation and that the summons and complaint should constitute compliance with the statute.

The railroad disagreed. They contend that the wife did not file a notice of claim within the eight months limit. They acknowledge that she filed the summons and complaint within the 90 day limit, but maintain that the actual notice of claim was not filed until ten months after the injury and that it would not be in compliance with the statute.

Continue reading

by
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

A woman began leasing an apartment in 1993. The lease contract provided that the lease may be renewed every two years. The woman lived in that apartment with her twelve year old daughter. They lived continuously in the apartment where the landlord corporation made numerous repairs of the ceiling, the walls and the bathroom.

The paint on the walls in the apartment peeled off several times during the duration of the lease. Pain peeled off the ceiling and fell to the floor. When the bathroom fixtures were replaced by the landlord also peeled off the walls in the bathroom with the plaster.

In 2003, the woman’s daughter who had all grown up got pregnant and gave birth to a daughter. The next year, 2006, the woman’s daughter began co-signing the lease and also began paying for the rent. When the granddaughter was twelve months old, doctors found that she had lead in her blood of less than three micrograms per decilitre. A year later, in 2005, her blood was tested again and her blood-lead levels were found to be 20 micrograms per decilitres.

Continue reading

by
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

The Facts:

On 27 January 1970, the job superintendent of a Company, plaintiffs’ employer, ordered a quantity of lumber from defendant by telephone, including 200 pieces of 2 9 scaffold planking, and specifically asked for scaffold planking. He had 20 years of experience in the trade and had dealt with defendant for 15 or 16 years; this was the normal way he gave an order and was the standard procedure for ordering. The scaffold planking was a standard item 13 feet long, suitable for scaffolding, and should be number one grade–free from any imperfections that would affect the quality of the material. Thereafter, defendant’s vice-president, who received the telephone order, stated that the latter specifically asked for rough spruce planking without saying which of two available grades he wanted. This was a repeat of many orders he had received from the superintendent for other jobs during the previous two or three months and the superintendent did not mention scaffold planking or say what he was going to use it for. When the superintendent gave him the order, he wrote it down in an order book as it was given to him. The trade custom and usage is to sell rough spruce as is; and defendant, which buys it lumber from a mill, does not cut or grade it in any way and does not inspect it for quality upon delivery to it. The defendant lumber yard then delivered the lumber and one of the Company’s foremen checked it for quantity, not quality, and signed a receipt for it. Following the delivery, the Company’s employees branded the firm name on both edges of the planking (it was two inches thick), about a foot from one end, and then stacked it in a pile. At that time, only the edges of the plank were visible. The Company’s foreman ordered planks to be brought from the first floor of the building under construction down to the C-3 level and placed side by side across steel beams. Two men took planks from the pile and passed them down, floor by floor. About five or six planks were then laid side by side over an opening, about an inch or so apart, one end of each plank resting on a concrete platform and the other on a steel beam which it overhung by a foot. Plaintiffs stepped on the scaffold at about the same time and a few seconds later the middle plank cracked, causing them to fall some 25 feet to the foundation below. After the accident, plaintiff looked over and saw that the broken plank was rotted.

Subsequently, plaintiffs brought the instant action against the defendant lumber supply company to recover damages, on the theories of breach of warranty and negligence, for personal injuries sustained, broken bone and the like, when a scaffolding plank broke under their weight and caused them to fall; a scaffolding accident or construction accident.

Continue reading

by
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

In this case the plaintiffs are Precise Management Inc., the Bridge Street Development Corporation, and BSDC NRP I Limited Partnership. Their case is against the Tower Insurance Company of New York, Tower Group Companies, and as an additional party to the counter claim, Kenneth L. Johnson. The case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the state of New York located in Kings County.

This case is a motion for a summary judgment by the defendants requesting that the complaint made against them by the plaintiff is dismissed. The defendants also seek to have a summary judgment made in their counterclaim.

Case Background

Continue reading

by
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

This plaintiff in this case is Randolph Ward. The defendant of the case is Three Nickles LLC. The case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York located in Kings County. Judge Francois A. Rivera is overseeing the case.

The defendant, Three Nickles LLC is seeking an order for summary judgment in their favor to dismiss the complaint made against them by the plaintiff. The plaintiff, Randolph Ward is opposing this motion.

Case Background

Continue reading

by
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

The plaintiff in this particular case is Avital Yarmush. The defendants of the case are Temco Service Industries, Inc., St. Peter’s Lutheran Church of Manhattan, Citigroup Center Condominium, Boston Properties Limited Partnership, and BP/CG Center I and BP/CG Center II, LLC. This case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York located in the County of New York. The Honorable Saliann Scarpulla is overseeing the case.

This case involves the issue of negligence on the part of the defendants. The plaintiff has issued the negligence action after he fell down the steps at a property that was owned, operated, managed, and maintained, by each of the defendants. The defendants have moved for the errata sheet related to the deposition testimony of the plaintiff to be struck. The defendants have also moved for a summary judgment in their favor to dismiss the complaint.

Case Background

Continue reading

by
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

Caroline and James J. Heavey are the plaintiffs of the case. The defendants in the case are 148-154 Columbus Avenue Partners L.P., Lincoln Associates, Lincoln Triangle Partners, L.P., and Starbucks Coffee Company. The case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York located in New York County. Judge Joan A. Madden is hearing the case.

This is a personal injury action. The defendants Starbucks Company and their landlord Lincoln Triangle Partners, Lincoln Associates, and 148-154 Columbus Avenue Partners have moved for a summary judgment in the case to dismiss the complaint that has been bade against them by the plaintiffs Caroline Heavey and James J. Heavy.

Case Background

Continue reading

by
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

by

The plaintiff in the matter is Andrea Faulk. The defendants in the matter are the City of New York and Marcus Garvey Brownstone Houses, Inc. The case is being heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York located in Kings County.

The defendants have moved for a summary judgment in the case dismissing the complaints made against them by the plaintiff.

Case Background

Continue reading

by
Published on:
Updated:
Contact Information