Work Injury

While walking on the sidewalk, a man allegedly had a trip and fall accident on a portion of the sidewalk near the City Library which rests against metal grating. As a result of the accident, Gray sustained injuries to his left hand, his left forth finger, and to other parts of his body. He filed summons and complaint against five defendants. The action is to recover monetary damages for personal injuries sustained.

Sources revealed that Defendant A is a City in the U.S, Defendant B is a City Transit Authority, Defendant C is a Metro Transit Authority, Defendant D is an electric service provider and Defendant E is a public library. Defendants B and C requested to dismiss the complaint and all cross claims made against them. They contend that the plaintiff and the co-defendants have failed to state a cause of action as against them and that there are issues capable of trial in dispute as they do not own, maintain, operate or control the sidewalk or the grating where plaintiff fell. Defendant A argued that it is neither the owner of the subject sidewalk, nor is responsible for its maintenance. Defendant D argues that a question of fact exists whether it was responsible for maintaining the sidewalk as the Library has admitted in a previous case that it entered into a contract with a construction company for its rehabilitation and replacement.

The Plaintiff claims that the contractors previously performed work on behalf of the Library at the location of the accident.

An employee in a construction site summoned the property owner, the general contractor, the subcontractor and his employer. The parties were engaged in the construction/renovation of a condominium. A subcontractor was hired to provide the pre-fabricated exterior panels for the building. They subcontracted the installation of the exterior panels to an erector company. The Plaintiff was an employee of the erector company at the time of his accident.

Sources revealed that the purpose of the construction/renovation was to transform an existing eight-story building into a higher one, suitable for condominiums. The additional floors were set back from the original eight, creating a ledge on the ninth floor (formerly the roof). It was on the ninth floor that plaintiff suffered his accident.

It is uncontested that on the day of the accident, the ninth floor of the site was littered with construction debris, and had been so cluttered for some time. In fact, the erector’s owner wrote to the subcontractor’s project manager, complaining of the unsafe and deplorable conditions at the job site, including materials and debris everywhere left from other contractors. The day before, the erector’s owner had also written to the project manager complaining that on the 9th floor roof, there are many safety hazards and material and debris everywhere. At his deposition, the erector owner testified that between December 2002, when the letters were written, and February 26, 2003, the date of the accident, the debris problem on the ninth floor got worse because the interior of the building was getting finished, so all the stuff that was laying in there, they kept pushing out into the areas so they could finish the interior of these apartments. Everybody was putting a lot of the debris there because they were trying to finish the apartments. In short, the trades working on the interior portions of the ninth floor were using the terrace essentially as a dump for debris.