Articles Posted in Construction Accidents

On January 30, 2007, Eddie Goodwin was on the fourth day of working to install wood paneling and molding at the Dix Hills Jewish Center in Dix Hills, New York when he was injured after falling from an unstable ladder. In preparing to lay the paneling, Goodwin had removed several fixtures from the walls – including two audio speakers. As the job was nearing its completion on the fourth day, a Rabbi employed by the temple asked Goodwin to re-install the speakers. Because rehanging the speakers would involve drilling holes and installing brackets, Goodwin used a ladder that was at the temple. After successfully installing the first speaker, Goodwin was in the process of installing the second speaker when the ladder “started swinging” and he subsequently fell from the ladder’s fourth rung and sustained injuries.

Goodwin sued the temple under New York Labor Law § 240 (1) which would hold the temple responsible for Goodwin’s injuries if Goodwin were damaged while “altering the building at the time of his accident.” The temple argued that because he was merely installing speakers, and therefore was not “altering” the building. On the other hand, Goodwin pointed to evidence of drilling holes and installing brackets as evidence that the speaker installation should be construed as an “alteration” of the building.

Continue reading

Two NYC construction workers were killed when a 6,500 pound steel beam came crashing down from the fourth floor or a building after a crane wire snapped. Department of Buildings Commissioner (DBC), Rick Chandler, believes the rigging rope failed which caused the beam to fall. The city will conduct an investigation to find out whether the wind was a factor in the accident; winds were gusting at almost 40 mph.

The equipment is owned by Cranes Express Inc. and was being used to build a residential building in Briarwood, Queens.  Last January, the company received a $3,500 fine from the federal Occupational Satefy and Health Administration for a “serious” violation at a construction site in Brooklyn. A source from DBC said the equipment passed inspection in June and an employee from the company did not have a comment or information at the time. Continue reading

A 43 year old construction worker died after an accident at a construction site in Brooklyn on October 11 when a piece of machinery snapped and hit him in the head.

The construction worker was operating a pile drilling machine when a shackle from the machine snapped and hit him in the head and left him unconscious. NYPD responded to a call and found the man “unconscious and unresponsive with severe trauma to the head and body; he was pronounced dead at the scene. A security guard at the scene stated he left briefly to grab lunch and by the time he came back, the man was dead. He continued to say it is sad the man went to work and is now gone.

The attorneys at Gallivan & Gallivan take pride in representing the workers in all trades.  In the event you have any questions about your rights as a worker, please contact us.

On April 1, a young construction worker fell to his death while working on a two-family house in Brooklyn. Alex Santizo, 21, of Queens was working on the second floor of the home when a piece of debris struck him in the head and caused him to tumble through an air shaft from the second floor of the building to the basement. NYPD arrived at the scene around 2:15 pm in response to a call reporting an unconscious person. A witness said that when EMS workers removed him his face was covered in blood; he was taken to the hospital, but could not be saved.

Santizo’s family gathered at the job site on Saturday in remembrance of him. His mother was deeply upset as she left her apartment in Queens, saying she was very sad and was going to be with her family. The family did not have any details about the tragic loss at the time, his mother said she heard it was an accident.

Continue reading

In a report released January 2015, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) found that there were 10,388 severe workplace injuries in 2015; 7,636 of those injuries resulted in hospitalization and 2,644 resulted in amputations. The manufacturing industry has the highest reported accidents, accounting for 57% of all amputations and 26% of all hospitalizations, followed by the construction, transportation and warehousing industries. This data was collected by OSHA from 26 states with higher safety standards than federally mandated.

The report came as the result of new regulations that require companies to report serious workplace accidents within 24 hours. This new program took effect on January 1, 2015 in an effort to reduce the amount of workplace injuries; currently there are 30 severe work-related injuries a day. OSHA stated that during investigations of fatal injuries they often find a history of serious injuries at the site, which was a wake-up call that safety issues were being disregarded. Continue reading

The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department in Montenegro v P12, LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 05919 [130 AD3d 695] reversed a lower court’s decision granting a defendant’s motion for summary judgment to dismiss a cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 241(6), predicated on 12 NYCRR 23-1.8(a).

The plaintiff was employed as a carpenter on a renovation project at a premises owned by the defendant.  The plaintiff was injured while using a pneumatic nail gun to attach molding around a window.  He was struck in the eye with a nail and sustained injuries to the eye. Continue reading

The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiff in a ladder / elevation case under Labor Law 240.

The plaintiff was an electrician for Atlas-Acon Electric Service who was working on NBC property in New York City. The plaintiff ascended an A-frame ladder in order to replace the ballasts on 25 light fixtures. After completing his job, he began to descend the ladder. At this time, the ladder swayed, and the plaintiff fell, sustaining injuries. The plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit for Labor Law 240 violations.

Labor Law 240 (1) is also known as the Scaffold Law. Labor Law 240 covers protections for employees working at elevated heights. It requires employers to provide or erect scaffolding, blocks, irons, ropes, pulleys, and harnesses for employees working at elevated heights. The law was codified in order to protect employees from the increased risk of danger and injury at elevated heights. The law is specifically directed at employees working on construction or renovation sites. When an employer fails to provide or maintain any equipment as required by Labor Law 240, the employer has violated the law. A violation of Labor Law 240 is evidence of negligence if the employee falls or is otherwise injured due to lack of safety equipment.

The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department dismissed an entire personal injury case because the construction worker plaintiff failed to state any claims in his appeal under which he could be entitled to any relief.

The plaintiff was working on a construction site owned by the defendant. The plaintiff stepped on a flatbed trailer that was provided by the contractor in charge of the construction project (not the defendant). The flatbed trailer had a hole on it that the plaintiff did not see. The plaintiff’s leg sunk through the hole, all of the way up to his hip, and he sustained injuries. The plaintiff filed a personal injury case, alleging a variety of Labor Law and Industrial Code claims.

The plaintiff filed suit against the owners of the property and not the contractor in charge of the construction project that had employed him. The defendant was therefore able to show it was prima facie entitled to summary judgment and therefore dismissal of the entire complaint.

The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department affirmed a trial court’s order denying summary judgment for two defendants after a glass door fell on the construction worker plaintiff.

The plaintiff was working at a construction site in New York City. The site was owned by Prudential, and Pinnacle was managing the project. The plaintiff tried to walk through a glass exit door. Upon doing so, the hinge broke off, and the door crashed down onto the plaintiff. The plaintiff sustained injuries and sued the property owner and construction company for personal injury damages sustained from the construction accident.

The plaintiff made claims under Labor Law 200. Labor Law 200 is the common law negligence statute for negligence at construction sites. In making a Labor Law 200 claim, the plaintiff must show that: (1) a dangerous condition or defect existed, (2) the defendant had notice of this defect, (3) the defect injured the plaintiff, and (4) the defendant had control over the plaintiff or was responsible for supervising the plaintiff.

The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department reversed a trial court order that denied a construction worker plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment regarding a Labor Law 240 (1) claim involving a falling brick.

The plaintiff was a construction worker. The defendants were two construction companies working together on a construction project. During a construction project that involved brick work, the plaintiff was on the ground level on the north side, cleaning debris. Other workers were in the building on upper level floors doing masonry work. The building had safety nets installed on the south, east, and west sides of the building but not the north side. While looking at the ground and cleaning, the plaintiff was struck in the head by a brick that was dropped from the north side by one of the masonry workers. The plaintiff was injured.

The plaintiff brought a negligence lawsuit under Labor Law 240 (1) and filed a motion for partial summary judgment. In his motion, he alleged that he had established a prima facie case of negligence under Labor Law 240 (1) and was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. This meant that the plaintiff was arguing that it was undisputed that the construction companies were liable.

Contact Information