Bad accidents happen to good people every day. Sometimes these accidents are caused by other people’s recklessness, like driving while drunk. Or by greed, like when a company fails to install or maintain safety equipment, or encourage employees to shrug off safety rules to make a job go faster, and a worker gets hurt or killed.
In these cases, the person or company responsible for the accident is said to be guilty of negligence, which is a civil crime, and can be prosecuted in a court of law.
A Maryland family recently was awarded $2 million in a negligence law suit that involved a street construction site. According to the lawsuit, Xiufeng Wang and his wife, Yunshu Li, werewalking home from lunch in a closed traffic lane when a dump truck backed over them. Li, 74, died from her injuries at the scene and Wang, 78 at the time, suffered a fractured back and wrist.
The suit accused the construction company, among others, of failing to provide a safe alternative route for pedestrians around the construction site. The company, which was working on a fire station, had removed a portion of the sidewalk, thus forcing walkers onto the street where heavy equipment was in use.
Negligence is generally defined in the law as a failure to exercise the care that an ordinary prudent person would exercise. This can mean doing something that a prudent person would not do, or failing to do something that a prudent person would do. Obviously in the dump truck case, the construction company should have foreseen the need to provide pedestrians with a safe route around the site while work was in progress.
The burden of proving negligence in a court case falls on the plaintiff, or the person bringing the suit. The plaintiff must show generally that:
- The defendant showed a lack of duty of care, that is, the defendant reasonably should have foreseen that the defendant’s conduct could have injured the plaintiff.
- The defendant’s conduct fell below a certain standard, such as it violated government rules or regulations, or professional codes of behavior.
- The defendant caused the harm. This simply states that there must be proof by the plaintiff that carelessness on the behalf of the defendant caused the plaintiff to suffer damage.
- That there was a reasonable likelihood that the defendant’s action could have resulted in harm.
If you or someone you know has an accident that results in serious injury or extended job loss, you may or may not have anyone to blame. But if it’s possible that a third-party contributed to the accident, you should talk to a personal injury attorney about the possibility that negligence played a part. If this is the case, you may be entitled to compensation to help you pay medical bills or to make up for lost pay checks.
A 23-year-old worker who lost his leg in agricultural accident has been awarded $1.6 million in damages by a Pennsylvania jury.
Samuel C. Rollings was working in a grain bin when he slipped, catching his foot and lower leg in a drag chain on a conveyor belt. The jury found the machine’s designer, Ken Babcock Sales, liable for the injury because it failed to provide guards around the machine.
The jury also found that Collins’ employer, Fredonia Cooperative Association, Inc., was also negligent by not providing adequate worker training or warnings.
Employers have an obligation under the law to provide reasonable protections for workers on the job, especially if it involves working around moving equipment, like conveyor belts. This includes safety training and instructions. When an injury case goes before a jury, the jury decides whether the employer or equipment manufacturer met the standard of reasonableness.
Obviously, in this case, the jury believed the employer and machine designer could have done a much better job keeping workers safe.
Anytime a worker suffers a job injury that leads to lengthy or permanent disability, he should consult an attorney with work injury experience to see if he is owed compensation under the law. Not only might the worker receive compensation for lost income and medical costs, but the lawsuit may encourage the company to adopt safer practices.
Garcia-Karam has decades of experience in work injury cases which have been instrumental in making work places safer.
Eleazar Torres-Gomez, the father of four sons, was killed while working at the Tulsa, OK Cintas plant. While following standard procedures at the plant, he fell into a 300- degree industrial dryer while trying to clear a jam of wet laundry off a moving conveyor belt. Some 20 minutes later a co-worker discovered him.
Garcia-Karam has successfully settled a lawsuit against industrial uniform giant Cintas Corporation as the result of his death. The law firm negotiated a settlement of the case of the case on behalf of his wife, Amalia Diaz- Torres and their children for an undisclosed sum. Mrs. Torres’ attorneys were Rick Garcia and Lino Ochoa.
See Story on ABC News
A quartz portable work light, sold by major retailers and found in homes, workshops, garages, and on construction sites across the U.S., is unreasonably dangerous for many of the situations for which it is purchased and used, claims a law suit filed in U.S. District Court, Dallas, TX.
[click to continue…]
Cameron County Residents vs. Valley Baptist Medical Center, et al.
Garcia & Karam were successful in a lawsuit for 27 residents of Cameron County, Texas against parties involved in the building and workplace safety of a two-story family clinic and pharmacy. After employees began to experience a wide variety of health issues, an indoor air quality assessment found airborne fiberglass and dust in the air conditioning. The defendants negligently caused injuries to plaintiffs’ respiratory system.
Employer (A.C. Best D/B/A Best Road Boring Service) failed to prevent electrocution
Garcia & Karam attorneys successfully represented a Texas victim’s family after a crane being operated by him contacted overhead power lines. The utility company that operated the overhead power lines was not notified of the construction work before the job accident occurred as required. The employer’s failure to maintain prevent this workplace accident and/or to warn of dangerous conditions.
Ochoa vs. AEP Service Corporation
A family man was working on a construction site, assisting in the lift of a two-ton column. The column dislodged and fell on top of him. He died due to negligence on the part of the defendants, including the construction company and the column manufacturer. Our law firm recovered a settlement that provided for the victim’s family after this tragedy.
Garza vs. G.T. Leach/ Highrise Concrete
A young man and his brother were working on a building site when an improperly secured steel panel collapsed. One man was crushed, the other severely injured. The defendants were found to be negligent by failing to secure the panel and other related equipment. Garcia & Karam secured an award to cover the loss for
the families of both men.
A Hidalgo County, TX man was electrocuted when a crane operated by one of the defendant’s employee came into contact with the overhead power lines. Under their contract, the utility company should have been notified and the death could have been prevented. This failure directly led to the tragic event. Our case successfully proved that the defendant failed to maintain a safe job site and to warn of dangerous conditions.
“Family members of Facundo Gonzalez, the 33-year-old Farmingville construction worker who died on January 5 after he was pinned beneath a wall that collapsed at a work site in Southampton Village, have hired a law firm to investigate his death. ‘We’ve been retained to look into the matter and determine whether or not there’s any liability or responsibility,’ said Ricardo A. Garcia, a partner with Garcia & Karam, a law firm in McAllen, Texas, on Monday.” Click here for complete story (The Southampton Press)
rss
