An accident occurred in the Bronx district during the distribution of construction materials at a construction site. Workers were tasked with distributing pallets of drywall panels across the construction site using transport carts. One of them sustained serious injuries after his cart snagged on construction debris. Suddenly, the panels on his cart abruptly slid off and fell onto his leg. The man was transported to the hospital, where necessary diagnostic tests were performed. X-rays revealed fractures of the fibula and tibia. The injured party had to undergo two major operations requiring bone reduction and fixation using metal plates and screws.
Workers’ Compensation insurance only covered the costs of treatment and a portion of lost earnings, which led the injured party to also file a civil lawsuit. Under New York law, he could not sue his employer, whose insurance paid the Workers’ Compensation benefits. Due to the pain and suffering incurred, the injured party sued the general contractor, claiming that they failed to exercise due diligence and violated the provisions of Labor Law § 241(6). The injured party indicated that the defendant company’s supervisors issued instructions to employees regarding the method of material distribution and controlled their work. According to their instructions, employees were to load additional panels onto the cart to speed up unloading. Furthermore, the injured party claimed that the construction site, especially the passages and corridors, was not cleaned, which increased the risk of tripping and falling. Debris and remnants of construction materials were scattered everywhere, which the injured worker also drove over at the time of the accident. During the pre-trial deposition, the injured party testified that he had informed his supervisors about the poor conditions. He also complained about the debris, after which he was assured by the supervisor that everything would be cleaned up soon.
In such cases, the Industrial Code, divided into general and specific provisions, also applies indirectly. This division is very important because only a violation of specific provisions provides adequate legal protection for the worker. Their scope constantly changes, but a good lawyer continuously monitors new court decisions and is able to discern the direction in which the law is heading. Accidents regulated by this article of the Labor Law are subject to less legal protection because contractors and owners do not bear absolute liability for them. Moreover, in such cases, the injured party themselves may bear partial or even full responsibility for the accident.
The defendant’s attorneys refuted the allegations, stating that Labor Law (§ 241(6)) did not apply to their client. Furthermore, they vehemently denied the injured party’s testimony. The defendant company’s supervisors indicated that they had never received any complaints regarding safety conditions at the workplace. The defendant’s attorneys argued that the injured party contributed to the accident himself by not exercising caution – he was not looking ahead. Moreover, the general contractor’s attorneys maintained that the Labor Law provisions were not applicable in this case because the injured party was not performing construction work. In their opinion, the injured party was delivering goods, which is not covered by labor law protection. They indicated that the direct cause of the incident was not a violation of regulations, and their client did not direct, supervise, or manage the injured party’s work. During the deposition, the general contractor’s employee also denied the injured party’s testimony, claiming that none of his employees had given the injured party instructions on how to transport materials.
The parties adamantly stuck to their versions of events, which prevented a settlement. A trial was held, at the end of which the jurors had to assess the facts and evidence and make a final decision on liability. Ultimately, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of the injured party, ruling that the general contractor was responsible for the accident.
The jurors found that the injured party did not contribute to his accident in any way, awarding him over two million dollars in compensation, including $1,800,000.00 for pain and suffering.