Illegal Aliens Entitled to Their Lost Wages

SCAFFOLD FALL

The Appellate Division Second Department decided a case on November 12, 2008 has determined that a laborer from Ecuador, who was in the United States without permission, was entitled to recover lost wages as a result of his injuries from a fall at a construction site. The worker fell from a makeshift scaffolding at a townhouse construction site after he was hired by one of the construction site companies to perform work. As a result of the fall of approximately 25 feet, the worker was left paralyzed. In December 2006, a jury awarded the worker $3.3 million, which included the very low amount of $102,000 for lost wages. The Court ruled that because the worker's employer violated The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 by not verifying the worker's identification documents, the worker was able to submit a claim for his actual lost wages to the jury. The Court then ordered a new trial unless defendants agreed to pay $6.8 million. http://www.foleygriffin.com/

Child Hurt On Collapsed Bleacher

On May 19, 2008, Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Robert Miller decided in the case of Einhorn v. City of New York, that injured students of a Brooklyn private school could continue their lawsuit not only against the City of New York, but against their congregation and their school for the negligent planning, operation and control of a wedding that they were attending. The students were injured when the bleachers they were watching the wedding from collapsed underneath them. The evidence showed that the bleachers were over flowing with people. The Court held that the congregation could be sued because a jury may find that as the organizer of the wedding it had a duty to its invited guests, including the students, to use reasonable and ordinary care to insure against foreseeable risks, which included preventing overcrowding of the bleachers.

NYC Construction Accident - Recent Settlement

Five companies that were involved in the demolition of a Queens bottling plant have agreed to pay a total of $16 million to a worker who suffered severe brain damage in a fall at the plant. The injured worker fell off of an 18-foot-high scaffold while working on the building. As the scaffold was not tall enough to reach the ceiling, the worker stood on a crate that was placed on the scaffold's top level. The claim was that this configuration was a violation of the New York State Labor Law. www.foleygriffin.com

Recent Jury Award

A jury awarded more than $13 million to a construction foreman who was injured when a job site's temporary bridge collapsed and dumped him onto a sidewalk eight feet below. After a judge ruled that the site's owners and the project's general contractors were liable via the broad applicability of the labor law, the jury found that the bridge's manufacturer was negligent in its construction of the bridge and that the site's engineer and the foreman's employer were negligent in their failure to inspect the bridge. The foreman, Paul Barraco, claimed that he sustained a back injury and fractures of both heels. He contended that he cannot resume work. Barraco was awarded $13,362,904, and his wife was awarded $637,096 for her residual loss. www.foleygriffin.com

Slip & Fall Accidents in New York State

Slip & Fall Accidents: As attorneys practicing in the field of personal injury in New York City and Long Island, we have many clients who have been injured in slip, trip and fall accidents. The first thing that we advise our clients at their initial interview, is the current applicable law in New York State. In order for a victim of a slip, trip and fall accident to be successful, she must submit to the Court that is hearing her case, sufficient evidence to create "a triable issue of fact" of whether or not the defendants either created the defective condition that caused her to fall or had actual or constructive notice of the defective condition. This can be proven by evidence that the defendants actually created the condition, or that they actually knew about the exact condition that made the victim fall. The victim may also prove this "notice" requirement by submitting evidence that an ongoing and recurring dangerous condition existed in the area of the incident, which was routinely left unaddressed by the defendants. This does not have to be the exact condition that the victim fell upon. If the victim does establish a condition was continuously present, the defendants may then be charged with notice of each specific re-occurrence of the hazardous condition. These rules are applied once the victim has successfully identified the proper defendants and followed all the legal requirements to effectively prosecute a civil case against them. As in most areas of the law, there are exceptions to these rules. It takes a cautious practitioner to identify and pursue all the proper parties and arguments in a slip, trip and fall case. www.foleygriffin.com