Articles Posted in Work Injury

On April 9, 2009, a man allegedly sustained injuries when he slipped and fell backward on asphalt/debris while attempting to remove a sixteen foot long wooden form with a pick at a construction project located in West Hempstead, New York. The project involved installation of drainage systems, curbing, replacement of asphalt shoulders and other related work. The man testified that the accident occurred while he was attempting to remove a series of wooden forms, approximately sixteen feet long and six inches wide, into which concrete had been poured. When he placed the pick under one of the forms and pulled back on the pick to lever said form, he slipped and landed on the ground. According to his testimony, on the day before the accident, the general contractor had put down temporary asphalt in the area where the accident occurred and there were pieces of asphalt of different sizes strewn around on the ground.

The accused and third-party complainant was the general contractor on the project and the man’s employer, a third-party opponent was the subcontractor hired by the general contractor to provide labor and materials as and for certain concrete and other related work on the project, including demolition of existing curbs and installation of new curbs. A Purchase Order, generated by the subcontractor and executed by the general contractor reflects the parties’ arrangement. The Purchase Order provides that the subcontractor agrees to save, hold harmless and indemnify the general contractor on account of all expense, liability or payment by damage suffered through any act of the general contractor and their subcontractors. The subcontractor further agrees to pay for all attorneys’ fees, costs and related disbursements incurred by the general contractor.

The complainant man commenced an action against the general contractor alleging negligence and violation of the Labor Law in its failure to provide him with a safe workplace, to properly supervise and oversee the job site and to provide proper safeguards.

Continue reading

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.

Continue reading

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.

Continue reading