ARTICLE ID 13768
$________ Concrete foundation rolls off of truck during delivery, crushing truck driver's leg - Amputation.
New London Superior Court
The 47-year-old male plaintiff was a truck driver who delivered a
load of concrete foundations. In the process of unloading the
foundations, one of the foundations rolled off of the truck and p 7 3
crushed the plaintiffs leg. He was flown by Life Star helicopter
to Yale New Haven Hospital where his leg was amputated
approximately six inches below the knee. The plaintiff alleged that
the defendant New England Pipe failed to properly secure the
concrete foundations, failed to use appropriate securing
materials, failed to train its employees in proper loading
procedures and violated government and industry standards. The
plaintiff alleged that the defendant Northeast Corridor
negligently directed the truck to park on an uneven slope,
improperly unloaded the foundations without regard to the center
of gravity, failed to train the forklift operator in safe
unloading procedures and failed to require that New England Pipe
use the proper blocking materials and methods.
The defendant Northeast Corridor is a consortium of three
construction firms that contracted with Amtrak to complete the
electrification of the rail line from New Haven to Boston.
Northeast Corridor then contracted with New England Pipe to
manufacture 12-foot long, 18-inch diameter concrete foundations
to support the steel structures on which the electric lines were
erected. As part of its contract, New England Pipe agreed to
transport the foundations, which weighed between ________ to ________
pounds each, to the railway. New England Pipe subcontracted with
Delta Bulk to transport the foundations to various points along
the tracks. New England Pipe loaded the foundations onto its own
flat bed trailers, placing wooden dunnage to separate the
foundations and nailing wooden blocks to the dunnage to secure
the foundations in place. Delta Bulk drivers then hooked up their
trucks to the trailers and drove to various sites along the
tracks. A Northeast Corridor employee would then unload the
foundations with a front end loader that was used as a forklift.
The plaintiff claimed that the defendants negligence and
improper use of materials in securing and unloading the
foundations resulted in his injury.
After the plaintiffs leg was amputated, physicians removed
muscle from his abdomen to create a cushion for the stump,
leaving a hole in his abdomen. A skin graft was taken from his
thigh to cover the stump. After a month of hospitalization, the
plaintiff was transferred to a rehabilitation center where he
remained for three weeks. After he was able to return home, the
plaintiff required daily visiting nurses to change the dressings
on his stump and his abdomen. The plaintiff was fitted with a
prosthesis within a year of the accident. He was unable to
continue driving a truck and was retrained as a dispatcher by his
employer. However, after a year of working as a dispatcher, a
recurrent infection precluded the plaintiff from wearing his
prosthesis and he was unable to continue working. The plaintiffs
orthopedist rated his disability at 70% for the loss of his leg
and 12% for chronic skin problems, which translates to a 32%
disability of the whole body. The plaintiffs medical bills were
$________. Workers Compensation payments totaled $________. The
plaintiff estimated his loss of wage earning capacity to be as
high as $________.
Northeast Corridor filed a cross-claim and third party cross-
complaint for indemnity against New England Pipe. An attempt to
include Delta Bulk Transport, the plaintiffs employer, as a p 7 3
third party defendant was unsuccessful.
Following mediation, the parties agreed to settle for the sum of
$________, with New England Pipe to pay $________ through its
insurance carrier; and Northeast Corridor to pay $________,
$________ through its primary carrier and $________ through its
excess carrier. The settlement was apportioned with $________ to
the plaintiff and $________ to his wife for loss of consortium.
A post-settlement dispute arose concerning the excess carrier for
Northeast Corridor, which claimed that its obligation to pay its
share of the settlement of $________ was conditioned on arriving
at a written arbitration agreement with New England Pipe. The
excess carrier refused to pay within 30 days. The plaintiff filed
a motion for default judgment pursuant to state statute and
demanded interest. The defendant opposed the motion claiming that
the arbitration agreement was a precondition to the settlement.
The defendant also opposed the payment of any interest. The
agreement to arbitrate was reached approximately three months after
settlement. The excess carrier then delivered a check for
$________. After a full evidentiary hearing, the court rejected
the defendants claim of a condition precedent. The defendant
further argued that its check was an accord and satisfaction
which was accepted by cashing the check. The plaintiff argued
that the letter accompanying the check was ambiguous as to
whether the check resolved the original claim or the statutory
interest claim. The court found that there was no accord and
satisfaction intended or accepted. The plaintiffs motion for
judgment for 83 days of interest in the amount of $________ was
granted. The defendant plans to appeal.
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:
- Determine if a case is winnable and recovery amounts.
- Determine reasonable demand for a case early on.
- Support a settlement demand by establishing precedent.
- Research trial strategies, tactics and arguments.
- 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.