Artículos publicados en Accidents Involving Construction Debris

When you are injured while working at a construction site, it is very possible that there were multiple different entities working on that site. There may have been multiple different subcontractors in addition to a general contractor. One of the keys to achieving a successful result in your case, then, is to be sure that you have identified and named in your lawsuit an entity or entities from which the law says you can recover compensation. This process of selecting the parties you’ll sue may seem like an obvious matter but it can be an intricate choice, and making a mistake can potentially jeopardize your ability to get the compensation you need. To make sure that you have the advice and counsel you need at every step of the process, be sure you have legal representation from a skilled New York City construction injury attorney.

D.W. was an employee of a subcontractor on a project who was responsible for setting a scaffold when he was injured. As D.W. set up the scaffold, a tire rim fell from a roof several stories above him and struck him on the head. A different subcontractor had placed the rim on the roof to hold up a safety warning barrier that warned workers they were near the roof’s edge.

In D.W.’s case, he sued the roofing subcontractor. The roofing subcontractor argued to the court that it could not be liable for D.W.’s injuries because the man was employed by a different subcontractor and the roofing subcontractor held no authority over the area where D.W. was injured and had no authority over D.W.’s work. Nevertheless, D.W. was still allowed to go ahead with his lawsuit. The essential fact was not where D.W. was injured (which was on the ground). The essential fact was what brought about the injury, which was the roofing subcontractor’s placement of the rim on the roof (which was an area under the control of the roofing subcontractor) “in furtherance of” the roofing subcontractor’s work activities. The facts in D.W.’s case were undisputed that the roofing subcontractor owned the rim and that each subcontractor was responsible for making sure that it secured its work equipment and materials.

When you’re injured at a construction job, there may be various ways for you to seek damages, depending on the facts of your case. One option that may exist for you is a lawsuit asserting that you have a claim for damages under Labor Law Section 241(6). A claim under that law potentially arises when a violation of the state’s safety regulations has taken place. If you have been hurt because of debris left on the floor, equipment improperly stored, or some other safety problem, the law may allow you to recover compensation for the injuries you suffered. To pursue your rights, contact an experienced New York City construction injury attorney about your case.An example of this type of safety problem (and its leading to an accident) was the case of M.L. M.L. was a carpenter who was framing a bathroom on the 12th floor of a Manhattan hotel. While working, the carpenter stepped back off the ladder he was using and, in the process, landed in a hole in the floor, becoming wedged. The carpenter managed to avoid falling but became twisted, injuring his knee in the process.

M.L.’s lawsuit for compensation for his knee injury relied upon this statute (Section 241(6)) and the safety issues at his work area. One particular New York regulation, Section 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(e)(2), says that floors, platforms, and similar areas where work takes place must “be kept free of dirt and debris.” In the carpenter’s case, he noticed that the room in which he was working “was a little bit of a mess.” Specifically, he alleged that there was sheetrock, pipes, and other debris on the floor. What the carpenter didn’t remember, however, was whether or not the debris actually covered the hole (as opposed to being merely near the hole).

So did the carpenter’s inability to provide evidence that the debris covered the hole that caused his injury mean that he was unable to win his injury case and recover compensation? The courts clearly said the answer was, “No.” The law allows the jury in your case to make certain inferences based upon the proof that you provided to them if that proof is sufficiently extensive. In M.L.’s case, the appeals court ruled that, when the carpenter’s extensive deposition testimony was taken as a whole piece of evidence, it was adequate to allow for the inference that the debris either covered the hole or else was so close to the hole that it prevented M.L. from seeing the hole. Either way, the debris, as alleged, created a “hazardous condition,” which meant that the carpenter was entitled to go forward with his case against the building owner.