There is a type of mental image one gets when one thinks of a construction injury situation. The reader likely imagines a “hardhat” going to work at a large construction site and doing work on behalf of an employer whose only relationship to the worker is that of employer-employee. However, you might be surprised to know that those type of scenarios are not the only ones that can allow you to recover compensation for an injury under New York’s laws that protect workers hurt in construction-related accidents. In other words, if you’ve been hurt, the law may be capable of offering you more options than you would’ve thought. Contact an experienced New York construction accident attorney to find out more about the compensation you may be entitled to pursue.
Take, for example, the recent court case of A.D. J.P., who was A.D.’s mother, owned some rental properties upstate. A.D. attempted to climb onto the roof of one of J.P.’s properties one day to check on a chimney that possibly had suffered damage in a storm. A.D. fell from the ladder, though, and suffered injuries in the fall.
The son sued the mother, seeking compensation under several laws related to construction injuries, including Sections 200, 240(1) and 241(6) of the state’s Labor Law. Section 240(1) allows construction workers to seek compensation for harm suffered as a result of insufficient safety protection from “elevation-related” risks of harm.
The sorts of accidents that potentially can allow a worker to obtain damages are falling objects or the worker himself falling from a height, such as off of a scaffold or a ladder. A.D. fell off a ladder, from a height, and suffered injuries. Those elements all obviously fell neatly within the confines of a compensable injury under this law.
One clear potential problem remained, though. Did A.D. qualify as an employee of his mother? If he didn’t, then he couldn’t win his case. If he did, then he potentially had a very strong case. According to New York law, an employee for the purpose of seeking compensation under Section 240 or 241 is a “mechanic, work[er] or laborer working for hire.” In A.D.’s case, he asserted that he occasionally performed repairs on the mother’s rental properties and that, when he finished a repair, she paid him $100. The evidence also showed that A.D. was J.P.’s child who lived at J.P.’s home with her and her husband.
In other words, while there was some proof that A.D. might not meet the legal definition of an employee (but counted as a “volunteer” instead), there was other evidence that seemed to indicate that his situation did qualify him as an employee. With all that, there was enough for the son to go forward and take his case to trial.
So, in the end, this plaintiff, a son who lived with his mom and did certain tasks for her on her rental property (like chimney inspection), possibly met the legal criteria of an employee injured while engaged in a valid activity under the construction law, which would allow him to pursue his claim for damages in court. This is an outcome many lay people might not have otherwise expected upon first reading about A.D.’s situation.
What does that mean for you? It means you shouldn’t assume you know what all your options are when you’re injured. A skilled attorney may have more possibilities for you that you could have guessed. If you’ve been hurt, consult the experienced New York City construction injury attorneys at Arcia & Associates. Our team has many years of experience helping injured people and is here to help you get positive results.
Contact us at 718-424-2222 to find out how we can help you.
More Blog Posts:
Construction Debris Leads to a Successful Outcome For a New York Carpenter Pursuing a Construction Injury Case, Blog de Abogado en la Ciudad de Nueva York, 15 de Agosto de 2018
New York City Building Employee Wins Injury Case Due to Defective Ladder, Blog de Abogado en la Ciudad de Nueva York, 10 de Abril de 2018