. .

Invest in your success.
JVRA helps lawyers win cases by providing critical information you can use to establish precedent, determine demand and win arguments.

ARTICLE ID 196442

$________ – LABOR LAW SEC. ________ (1) – DUMPSTER CONTAINING BRICK AND MORTAR DEBRIS PITCHES ONTO PLAINTIFF AS IT IS DESCENDING RAMP AND APPROXIMATELY SIX INCHES ABOVE GROUND – BILATERAL CRUSH FRACTURES TO FEET AND ANKLE FRACTURE ON ONE SIDE.

Kings County, NY

The plaintiff construction worker, 50 years old at the time of the accident, contended that as the dumpster, which was situated on the forks of a hoisting machine that was descending on a ramp, toppled when the ramp was approximately six inches above the ground, pinning him against a wall. The plaintiff maintained that irrespective of whether the dumpster fell because the container was not properly secured, had inadequate hydraulics, and/or if it was driven onto a flimsy ramp, or had round forks rather than flat forks as indicated by the coworker – the container was not properly operated or secured by hooks or straps, which were available to prevent it from falling, and that the defendants owner and general contractor should be liable under Sec. ________ (1). The plaintiff maintained that he suffered bilateral crush fractures to the feet, has already required three surgeries, including an arthrodesis, and that future surgery may be required. He supported that he will suffer permanent pain that will require pain medication, has a significant limp, and that he is permanently unemployable in a physical job.

He related that as the load was descending on the ramp, a wheel at the right front corner broke off, and as he and another worker pushed from behind, another wheel at the left front corner also broke off. He then squatted in order to pick up the now wheel-less front end of the device. The plaintiff’s foreman, who was at the back of the device, moved the device forward, which was not a movement the plaintiff was expecting. The device fell forward, and the plaintiff was pinned against a wall.

The defense moved for Summary Judgment, denying that Sec. ________ (1) should apply. The plaintiff countered that even if the elevation was very slight, it was, nonetheless, the effect of gravity which caused it to fall onto and injure plaintiff. The plaintiff moved for Summary Judgment on the Sec. ________ claim and the cross-motions were pending at the time of the settlement. He suffered bilateral crush fractures to the feet, and an ankle fracture on one side. The plaintiff maintained that the surgeries that were already necessary, included a fusion surgery on one foot, and contended that he will suffer permanent extensive pain and require a significant amount of pain medication for the remainder of his life.

The plaintiff also maintained that the significant limp is permanent in nature. He was earning approximately $________ per year, and opined that he is unemployable in the construction field.

The plaintiff, who has no children, was living with his fiancée at the time of the incident.The case settled for $________.

To read the full article, please login to your account or purchase

5 ways to win with JVRA

JVRA gives you jurisdiction-specific, year-round insight into the strategies, arguments and tactics that win. Successful attorneys come to the table prepared and use JVRA to:

  1. Determine if a case is winnable and recovery amounts.
  2. Determine reasonable demand for a case early on.
  3. Support a settlement demand by establishing precedent.
  4. Research trial strategies, tactics and arguments.
  5. Defeat or support post-trial motions through past case histories.

Try JVRA for a day or a month, or sign up for our deluxe Litigation Support Plan and put the intelligence of JVRA to work for all of your clients. See our subscription plans.


Your cart is empty
Let Our expert Researchers Do The Searching For You! Pro Search Service

Related Searches