The Law Offices of Barry G. Doyle, P.C.

In Maryland last week, three workers were injured when a hotel freight elevator malfunctioned, resulting in a three-story free fall to the ground. One of the injured workers worked for the hotel; the other two were sprinkler technicians. One of the victims was so seriously injured that he had to be flown to the University of Maryland Hospital.

There are a few points that come from this news story:

1. All of the injured workers are entitled to worker's compensation benefits, which in Illinois would include payment of their medical expenses, two-thirds of their average weekly wage while they are off work (known as TTD), and a lump sum for permanency associated with their injuries.

2. Most of the time, maintenance of elevators is contracted out to elevator maintenance companies. All of the injured workers should be permitted to pursue a third party liability case against the maintenance company based on their failure to properly inspect and maintain the elevator.

3. The employees of the sprinkler company would also be permitted to sue the hotel for negligent maintenance of the elevator. Under Illinois law, owners of buildings with elevators are normally considered common carriers, which means that they must exercise the highest degree of care for the safety of the users of the elevator. Poor maintenance of the elevator is a basis for a liability suit against the owner of the elevator.

4. However, the hotel employee could not sue the hotel in a liability case, but must instead limit his recovery against the hotel to worker's compensation benefits. This is due to the exclusive remedy feature of the Illinois Worker's Compensation Act.

Labels: elevator accidents exclusive remedy third party liability lawsuits worker's compensation

Construction Accidents

2/7/2010
Barry Doyle
Comments (0)

Van hits worker at construction site

In Hawaii last week, a construction worker was seriously injured when a van went out of control, pinning him underneath. According to eyewitnesses, the driver of the van reached down to get something off the floor of the van and lost control of the vehicle.

From a legal perspective, the key issue in this automobile accident liability case is whether the driver of the van was a co-worker of the man who was hit. The reason for it is this:

Worker's compensation is a no-fault system. If you are hurt on the job, you are entitled to worker's compensation benefits. It does not matter who is to blame for an accident, whether it is you, your employer, or a co-worker. However, because you are entitled to worker's compensation benefits, you give up the right to file a liability suit against your employer or a co-worker. This is known as the exclusive remedy rule.

However, if the driver of the van is employed by someone else, then the injured worker would be allowed to pursue a third party automobile liability suit against the driver of the van and his employer. In the third party liability suit, the injured worker could seek to recover damages for his injuries that would exceed the amount of the worker's compensation benefits he received. Otherwise, he would be limited to worker's compensation benefits due to the exclusive remedy rule.

Pursuing a third party liability case is a complicated venture because of the relationship between the third party liability case and the worker's compensation case. This is why we strongly recommend that if you are considering filing a third party liability suit that you hire an experienced Chicago personal injury lawyer.