Pipefitter injured in accident at power plant

A pipefitter was severely injured in a construction accident while working at a California power plant.  Details of the accident were not available in the news story I reviewed, but he was working for a contractor at the plant.  He apparently suffered a crushed chest.

Over the years, I have represented numerous injured construction workers who were seriously injured in construction accidents at power plants, refineries, and other industrial projects.  One common thread I found in those projects is that the operator of the plant retains extensive control over the work that was being done, including setting up and enforcing specific safety rules for the contractors on the project.

The extent to which the operator of the plant involves themselves in the safety of the construction project also opens them up liability in third party liability construction accident suits in the event that there is a work-related accident caused by the failure to monitor and enforce the safety rules for the project.  Being able to pursue a third party liability suit for a construction injuries provides injured workers an opportunity to secure significant additional compensation in addition to their Illinois worker's compensation benefits.

Any construction worker injured on a job site involving an industrial project such as a power plant would do well to consult with an experienced Chicago construction accident lawyer to at least examine whether there is a legitimate basis for a third party liability suit.

One killed, eight injured in church roof collapse

In construction accidents on multi-contractor sites, injured workers can file both a worker's compensation claim and a third party liability suit against contractors whose negligence contributed to cause the accident.

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.

Fines levied in boom lift wrongful death accident

In June, an ironworker was killed on an construction accident on an Indiana job site when the book lift he was riding in hit a two foot by two foot hole which was a foot deep.  This caused him to be thrown from the lift where he suffered injuries which resulted in his wrongful death.

OSHA investigated the accident and issued fines to four companies.  The basis of the fines was failing to mark, barricade, or provide stops logs which would have prevented the boom lift from rolling into the hole.  One construction safety concept that is embodied in the OSHA construction safety regulations is that openings in walking and working surfaces must be marked and barricaded so as to prevent workers from falling into the holes created by the floor openings.

From the news article, the role of the four construction companies in creating the hole and then failing to cover it was not clear, but clearly the OSHA investigation revealed some negligence on their part.  This can form the basis of a third party construction negligence liability suit.

Construction worker killed in crane accident

A Pittsburgh area man was killed in a wrongful death construction accident last week.  The man was working for a partition company and was working on the fourth floor of the building at the time of his death.  A crane was being used to lift materials up to higher floors, but the crane and its load hit the fifth floor of the building.  This caused a piece of concrete to break off and hit the man, killing him.

Unless the crane was being operated by a co-worker, this is exactly the kind of case which would result in a construction accident third party liability suit.  The basis of this would be that the crane operator failed to keep the load under control and deliver it safely to the landing point. 

Case like this care very challenging factually, and I recommend to anyone who is involved in a construction accident such as this that they hire an experienced Chicago personal injury lawyer to represent their interests.  The relationship between an Illinois worker's compensation case and a third party liability suit present challenging legal issues.  Having well-qualified counsel representing their interests can make a difference of thousands of dollars to families who are involved in construction accidents such as this.

Operator sentenced in trackhoe death case

A Florida construction worker was sentenced to 6 years in jail for his role in a wrongful death accident on a road construction project.  The laborer, who was not a certified heavy equipment operator, was told to move a track hoe by a supervisor.  As he attempted to move the equipment out of the work zone, the bucket of the track hoe clipped a passing vehicle, causing a rollover accident which left the driver dead.

Heavy equipment mishaps are responsible for a large number of construction accidents each year.  It is absolutely critical that those who are placed behind the controls of that kind of machinery be well-trained in its safe operation.  Further, the equipment must be properly maintained and equipped with necessary safety devices.  Spotters must be employed where tight working conditions warrant them, especially in light of the potential for this machines to cause serious injury or death.

This accident was a result of having an improperly trained operator behind the controls of the track hoe and failing to use a spotter when the track hoe was being moved into the roadway.  The operator is doing jail time, but the responsibility for this accident rests on the construction company which set him up to fail.  Hopefully, the family of the driver killed in this accident hired an experienced construction accident lawyer to assist them with this case to ensure that the construction company bears some accountability for what occurred here.

Worker injured by reversing skid loader

Last week in Nebraska, a worker on a construction site was injured when a skid loader backed over him, causing him to suffer two broken legs.  The injured worker was on a road construction project.  The skid loader had just dropped a load of dirt and the injured worker got behind it to check grade when the operator of the skid loader put the machine into reverse and backed over the injured worker.  The reverse alarm on the skid loader was not operational.

Obviously, the worker in this construction accident is entitled to worker's compensation benefits.  Worker's compensation benefits in Illinois include three basic benefits: (1) two-thirds of your average weekly wage while you are off, known as TTD, (2) payment of your medical expenses, and (3) a lump sum for permanency associated with the injury.

Additionally, as an experienced Chicago personal injury lawyer, I would start to ask the following questions to determine whether this man could pursue a third party liability lawsuit as well:

• Were the injured worker and the operator of the skid loader co-workers?  If they were, the exclusive remedy would bar the injured worker from suing the employer of the operator.  If not, the injured worker would be able to file a third party liability construction accident suit against the employer of the operator?
• Was the skid loader ever equipped with an operating reverse alarm?  If not, there may be a basis for a third party liability suit against the product manufacturer.
• Who owned the skid loader?  If it was leased and there no operating reverse alarm, there may be a basis for a third party negligence suit against the leasing company.

The worker hurt in this construction accident suffered serious injuries, and while worker's compensation benefits are clearly available to him, compensation commensurate with his injuries will only be had through a third party liability suit.

Fall from hydraulic lift injures construction worker

A construction worker on a residential construction site in New Jersey was injured last week when the hydraulic lift he was using fell over.  The fall of over 30 feet resulted in serious injuries to the man.

Hydraulic lifts are frequently used on construction sites and can be the cause of serious construction accidents.  One common cause of the an accident involving a hydraulic lift is use without having proper footings.  When a lift is used on dirt or unfinished ground, especially when wet or having a high sand content, there is a risk that the supporting arms of the hydraulic lift will sink into the ground, creating a high risk that the lift will tip over.

Use of a hydraulic lift  on a project is something which should be considered when developing a safety plan for a construction site.  The general contractor most job sites will have responsibility for making sure that the risks associated with the use of this kind of equipment are considered before the work begins and that an adequate plan to address these risks is developed and implemented throughout the project.  Failing to do so can be the basis of a third party liability construction accident suit.

Construction worker's arm crushed in materials handling accident

Yesterday, a construction worker on a job site in Massachusetts suffered what was called an "open, crushing injury" to his forearm when materials which was being unloaded from a flatbed truck fell on top of him.

The story about this construction accident got me thinking about the economic impact of this accident on this injured construction worker.  This man was injured seriously, but fortunately for him was not involved in a wrongful death accident.  However, he has suffered an injury which will have some significant long term impacts on his ability to work in the future. 

When someone is injured in an on the job accident which results in a third party liability suit for a construction accident, one of the elements of damages that can be claimed is past and future wage loss.  Obviously, this man will be able to claim lost wages for all of the time that he is off work, even if he is getting Illinois worker's compensation benefits.  However, the more significant part of his case is the future wage loss claim.

Many people working in the construction trades in Illinois are union workers, which means that they are paid a good wage and benefit package.   After suffering a permanent injury which results in work restrictions, may injured construction workers cannot return to the construction trades and have to find work in other fields.  Unfortunately many have a hard time finding a job which pays the same kind of wage and benefit package.  That differential is part of the future wage loss claim.

For example, the news story indicated that the man was 47 years old.   Being very conservative, let's assume that his work life expectancy was 15 years, or that he would have worked until age 62.  Let's also assume that the spends the next 3 years recovering from his injuries.  Most construction workers do not work a full year, but carpenters tend to do better than most, so let's assume that he works 1800 hours per year (or 45 weeks a year at 40 hours per week).  Let's also assume that he has a wage and benefit package amounting to $25 per hour.  This means that for each year he is off work, he has a wage loss claim of $45,000 per year (45 weeks x 40 hours per week x $25 per hour).  That means for 3 years off work, there is a past wage loss claim of $135,000.

Let's also assume that after spending 3 years recovering from his injuries, he cannot go back to construction, but instead finds a job where his wage and benefit package is $13 per hour.  The work is more steady, and he is working 2,000 per year or 50 weeks per year.  The next step is to compute the differential which will equal his future wage loss claim.

The differential is the amount that he would have earned working that much minus what he actually did earn.  Based on 12 years of lost work at 2000 hours per year, the amount that he could have earned was $600,000 (12 years x 2000 hours per year x $25 per hour).  However, he is only going to make $312,000 over that same time frame.  That results in a differential, and a future wage loss claim, of $288,000.

As an experienced Chicago personal injury lawyer, I know how significant a permanent work restriction can be for an injured construction worker.  Among the things that we do for our clients who have suffered career-ending injuries is to document their work history, show their earning potential, their difficulties in securing proper substitute employment, and retaining an expert economist to present the numbers to a jury in a cogent way.

It's a lot work, but it is worth it for our clients who deserve every penny of that differential.

Trench collapse accident claims life of construction worker

A trench collapse accident on Tuesday claimed the life of a Detroit area construction worker.  The man was part of a crew which was digging a hole to repair a broken water main when the sides of the hole collapsed around him, burying him up to his shoulders.  The man was conscious initially, but gradually lost consciousness and died from his injuries.

Trenching and excavation work is some of the most hazardous duties on construction sites due to the risk of being involved in a trench collapse accident.  Because the risks of a cave in are so high, there are strict OSHA regulations about what must be done to shore and slope the walls of the excavation to keep workers safe in the hole.

There are some types of excavations which are more hazardous than others.  Excavations with water and sand in them are especially dangerous because the walls of the excavation are much less stable and more probe to caving in.  This man was sent to work on a water main break, which should have led the crews to recognize that there was a high risk of a trench collapse accident due to water in the hole.  Also, as the excavation proceeded they should have recognized that there a good deal of sand in the hole as well.  This was a job which really required strict compliance with OSHA regulations to minimize the risks involved.

One other note about this wrongful death construction accident:  the man killed in the accident had been on the job with this company for only 2 weeks.  Excavation work requires extensive training to make sure that everyone on the job site recognizes hazards in the excavation, but this crew probably sent the man with the least experience down in the one of the most dangerous holes that the crew was likely to encounter.  Words can scarcely express hwo wrong that was.

Construction workers buried in concrete

One construction worker was killed and another seriously injured in a construction accident at a sewage treatment plant in Tennessee.  The men were pouring concrete into forms for 30 foot high concrete walls in the plant.  The form collapsed, resulting in the two men being buried in concrete for almost a half hour before they were pulled out of the concrete.

This wrongful death construction accident was probably preventable.  Pouring concrete walls is hazardous endeavor, and OSHA regulations provide certain minimum safety standards which must be followed.  These include:

• The concrete forms must be designed and constructed so that the anticipated loads can be held in place without failure.
• There must be drawings of the formwork done before the pour begins to make sure that the forms can support the anticipated load.
• Before the pour begins, the forms must be inspected to ensure that forms as built conform to the drawings and that the actual components are in proper condition to support the loads.

In most large scale construction projects, there is will be a general contractor that has entered into an agreement with the owner of the site for the work to be done.  The general contract for the project usually includes a provision that the work will be done in compliance with OSHA standards, which includes the standards for concrete form work.  Once it gets the job, the general contractor will let out subcontracts for various components of the work.  However, this does  not relieve the general contractor of its obligation to ensure that the manner in which the work is done complies with OSHA standards.

In this particular situation, the failure of the forms raises questions as to whether the work was being done in compliance with OSHA standards and as to whether the general contractor was properly discharging its obligation to oversee the work. 

As an experienced Chicago personal injury lawyer, I recognize that one of the keys to helping injured construction workers recover fair compensation for their injuries is to be able to identify the applicable OSHA regulations and the documents which should demonstrate how the work should be done to comply with those regulations.  For the workers injured or killed in this accident, investigation will probably show that either the plan for doing the work was deficient or the execution of the plan fell short, but given that OSHA regulations require planning and checking before beginning a concrete pour such as this, responsibility for this accident will probably fall back on the general contractor.

Scaffold accident kills one, injures two

Three masonry workers fell in a scaffold collapse accident at a construction site in Ohio.  One was fatally injured.  The workers were employed for a masonry subcontractor on a project that was building a new headquarters for a local energy company.

OSHA regulations covering the construction industry have a very specific set of safety regulations which govern the erection of scaffolding.  When these regulations are followed and the scaffold is used properly, a construction accident involving a scaffold collapse should not occur.

On large construction projects such as this, the general contractor usually has a contract with the project owner which provides that all of the work on the job site will be done in accordance with OSHA regulations, and this includes the scaffolding provisions that covered the scaffold these men were in at the time this accident occurred.

In addition to making a worker's compensation claim, in Illinois, they would be allowed to file a third-party liability suit, and for the case involving the worker who was killed in the accident, a wrongful death suit.  The basis of the accident would be the promise made by the general contractor to see that the work was done in compliance with OSHA regulations and the power of the general contractor to direct that the work be done in that manner.

This was an unfortunate and probably very preventable accident.

Load falling from crane kills construction worker

A construction worker in Michigan was killed in a crane accident when a load dropped from a crane and killed him while he was working on a job site.  The load of roofing material was being moved as part of a project for an addition to the children's hospital in Ann Arbor.

This kind of wrongful death construction accident should never occur.  There are a couple of construction safety issues which jump out at me as an experienced Chicago personal injury lawyer who has handled many construction accident cases:

• First, loads should never be lifted unless they are properly secured.  There is no reason for a load to fall while in transit, ever.  The rigging crew must know how to properly secure a load before the lift begins.  This is something for which there is no exceptions.
• Second, the area beneath the left should have been clear of personnel while the lift was going on.  This is an issue of coordinating the work properly, which is a responsibility which falls to the general contractor on the site.  Further, the crane operator should have recognized that there was safety hazard due to men working below and should have stopped the lift until the area below was clear.

It appears from this news story that this was a very preventable construction accident.  Making sure that a hazardous operation like lifting materials with a crane in a crowded job site is one which must be done safely and this kind of overall job site safety falls to the general contractor.  There is certainly a basis for proceeding with a third party liability lawsuit for this wrongful death construction accident.

Construction worker killed by dump truck going in reverse

A Washington, DC area construction worker was killed on a job site when he was backed over by a dump truck which was operating in reverse.  The accident happened at about 10:15 p.m., and the truck driver was saying after the accident that he did not see the construction worker.

This construction accident was preventable.  Construction sites are difficult places to maneuver a piece of heavy equipment due to the presence of men and equipment in a very confined space.  Standard practice would be to have a spotter assisting the driver in putting his truck into reverse, and if the driver cannot see the spotter, the truck should not be moving.  This is especially true where the work is being done at night or under other difficult visibility conditions.  The fact that the truck driver was reporting after the accident that he did not see the worker he killed indicates that there was no spotter being used.

In Illinois, this man's family would be entitled to pursue worker's compensation death benefits, but would also have the option to file a wrongful death suit against the truck driver and his company for negligently operating the truck without a spotter.  As an experienced Chicago personal injury lawyer, I would also look closely at the role of the general contractor on the job to determine whether there safety rules on the job site requiring the use of a spotter and if so, were they enforced.  The presence of a truck on a job site without a spotter endangers the safety of all the workers on the job site, and it should fall to the general contractor to ensure that spotting rules are in place and being followed.

Trench collapse kills Texas worker

A trench collapse accident in Texas has claimed the life of a construction worker.  The man was working in a 10 foot deep trench working on hooking up a new water tower when the trench collapsed on him.  The collapse partially covered him in dirt and caused injuries which resulted in his death.

Trenching and excavations are some of the most dangerous operations in construction work.  Between 2000 and 2006, 271 construction workers were killed in trench collapse accidents.  Because this is such dangerous work, detailed OSHA regulations spell out exactly what must be done to prevent injuries and fatalities from trench collapse injuries.  Violating OSHA regulations can very easily lead to trench collapses and serious injuries to workers inside the trench.

Many workers who are entrapped during a trench collapse suffered serious injuries from the weight of the dirt, but more alarming, are suffocated when the pressure against their chests and abdomens no longer allow them to breathe, resulting in suffocation.

In almost every contract I have seen for construction work, the general contractor promises to do the work in compliance with OSHA standards, which includes complying with trenching regulations.  Because the rules are so well-established and the dangers of trench work and excavation are so well-known, there is no excuse for general contractors to not be right on top of this kind of work, making sure that proper safety precuations are taken.  That was obviously not the case in this accident in Texas where the dead worker was in a 10-foot deep trench with no protection.

Fiery chain collision in Iowa kills St. Charles man, injures wife

A man from St. Charles was killed and his wife was injured when they were hit from behind by a tractor trailer which did not slow for traffic ahead as they approached a construction zone in Iowa.  The truck pushed the couple's car into a van ahead of them which was in turn pushed into yet another truck ahead which had slowed for the construction work.  At least some of the vehicles burst into flames.

This feels like a story I have read before  -- everyone slows for conditions ahead except for one truck driver who plows into the cars ahead, resulting in a chain collision.  These kinds of truck accidents are fairly inexcusable - truck drivers are professionals who are well trained to inspect and operate their vehicles.  They sit up high, so there should be no obstruction to their view of conditions ahead.  Truck accidents like this really should never happen, but do with alarming frequency.

I suspect that the final investigation of this truck accident will reveal one or more of the following factors: speeding and inattention by the truck driver, driver fatigue and/or falsification of log books by the truck driver, poor training of the truck driver, and/or inadequate maintenance of the tractor trailer.

Carpenter killed in fall from scaffold

An Illinois carpenter was killed in a fall from a scaffold at a construction project in Missouri.  The man was air lifted to a hospital where he died from multiple injuries from the fall.

OSHA regulations have specific requirements for scaffolds on construction sites.  One of the requirements is that there is a guard rail in place.  The whole reason for requiring a guard rail is to prevent falls from great heights, as these always result in serious injuries or death.

On most construction sites, the general contractor has a responsibility for ensuring that work is done safely and in compliance with OSHA standards.  An experienced Chicago personal injury lawyer will recognize the potential liability of the general contractor for this wrongful death accident and ensure that the family is able to pursue an Illinois third party liability construction accident suit in addition to receiving Illinois worker's compensation benefits.