Sześćdziesięcioletni pracownik uległ wypadkowi podczas przenoszenia drewnianej platformy na poddaszu remontowanej szkoły. The worker tripped over his assistant’s leg and then forcefully fell through an opening in the ceiling. As a result of this accident, he fell twenty feet down, sustaining fractured heel bones in both legs. An ambulance took him to the hospital, where he had to undergo surgery to repair the bones and joints and stabilization using metal screws and surgical plates. After the surgery, he was referred for several months of rehabilitation. As a result of his injuries, he was unable to return to work.
Practically every construction worker injured in an accident has two legal procedures available to pursue their claims. The first is proceedings before the Workers’ Compensation Board, and the second is a lawsuit for damages in civil court. While the injured party can obtain partial reimbursement for lost wages and necessary medical care from Workers’ Compensation, compensation for pain and suffering and any economic losses can only be sought in a civil case brought against the contractor and the building owner. These two proceedings are governed by their own distinct laws. A lawyer who can handle both cases in their firm will usually secure the highest compensation for the injured party.
In this case, the construction worker sued the general contractor and the city, as the school owner, for pain and suffering and economic losses, claiming that the defendants violated Labor Law provisions. The injured party indicated that the defendants did not secure the opening in the ceiling that caused his accident in any way. They did not install a protective net, nor did they cover the opening with a board or place warning signs. They also did not equip workers with harnesses or safety belts. The defendants’ lawyers rebutted the allegations, stating that their clients were unaware of the alleged defect, nor did they create it. They suggested that the injured party was lying, presenting an untrue version of events.
Niedługo po wypadku dokonana została wizja lokalna na terenie budowy. Podczas fazy rozpoznawczej skrupulatnie zgromadzony został materiał dowodowy. Zebrano oświadczenia świadków, a poszkodowany został doskonale przygotowany na przesłuchanie przed procesem.
Fakt, iż pozwani naruszyli przepis 240 (1) Prawa Pracy, stanowi najlepszą podstawę do roszczenia odszkodowania za wypadek budowlany, ponieważ w takich przypadkach generalny wykonawca i właściciel budynku ponoszą praktycznie absolutną odpowiedzialność. W przypadku udowodnienia, że poszkodowany pracownik budowlany jest chroniony właśnie przez ten przepis, częściowa wina poszkodowanego nie ma znaczenia. Należy jednak mieć na uwadze, że przepis nie chroni przypadków, gdy umyślne działanie pracownika było wyłączną przyczyną wypadku lub gdy poszkodowany został uznany za tzw. „nieposłusznego pracownika” który, przykładowo, wbrew zakazowi kierownika, użył wadliwej drabiny, podczas gdy mógł skorzystać z innej, bezpiecznej drabiny dostępnej na terenie budowy.
The injured worker in this case did not speak English well enough to freely testify before the opposing lawyers. It was extremely important to ensure that during the testimony, the injured party used appropriate words and terms for this type of case. It is worth remembering that if the injured party testifies in Polish, not English, it is absolutely crucial that they are represented by a lawyer fluent in Polish during the examination. In such cases, the examination lasts eight hours, and sometimes even several days. Even the best interpreters, due to fatigue, can make mistakes that can affect the outcome of the entire case. In such situations, only a bilingual lawyer can react in time and correct the interpreter.
W tej sprawie kluczowe było dokładne wyjaśnienie, w jaki sposób pracownik wpadł do otworu. Kilkaset stron transkryptu zawierającego przetłumaczone odpowiedzi poszkodowanego musiało ściśle odzwierciedlać pierwotne zeznanie.
The injured party maintained that in addition to fractured heel bones, he suffered arthritis in both limbs, nerve damage in his neck and lower spine, and internal injuries in his right arm. However, the insurance company was unwilling to pay a reasonable amount of compensation. The case went to trial before a jury. After lengthy deliberations, the jurors awarded the injured party nearly six million dollars in compensation, including three million dollars for future pain and suffering.