David's Construction Accident Corner

David Perecman

A Monthly Column from The Perecman Firm’s Founding Partner

Hi, it’s David Perecman, owner of the Perecman Firm P.L.L.C. This is my monthly column, “David’s Corner.” In it, I will talk about the latest developments in the area of New York construction accidents. That includes news on major rulings and case law which may affect construction workers across NYC and the state, legislative updates and new laws, current industry trends, and other pertinent information relevant to workers, their legal rights, and the risks they face when on the job.

If you have questions about your own construction accident case, options, and how our firm can help, we’re available 24/7 to take your call, and offer free and personalized consultations. Contact us.

Podcasts

Introduction to Construction Accident Law

Scaffolding Accidents

Labor Law 240 (Scaffold Law)

Joaquin F. Escobar Camacho v. Ironclad Artists Inc., et al.

Here the injured worker won because he fell off a scaffold that didn’t have guard rails when it tipped over. The Appellate Division, First Department, found for Camacho, even though he didn’t unlock the wheels on the scaffold, because that goes towards his potential negligence which is not a defense under the Scaffold Law. It is the defendant’s burden to make sure he is provided with a scaffold that was safe for the job, and since this one fell over and didn’t have guardrails, they failed to meet their burden and the scaffold it obviously wasn’t safe enough to provide him with proper protection.

Jonny Contreras v. 3335 Decatur Avenue Corp., et al.

This is a great case where the Court found that the regulation (12 NYCRR § 23-1.5(c)(3)) that requires “[a]ll safety devices, safeguards and equipment in use shall be kept sound and operable, and shall be immediately repaired or restored or immediately removed from the job site if damaged” applied to the case and was specific enough to warrant imposing liability on the Defendants. The worker was using a hand-held grinder from which the safety guard had been removed and an oversized blade was put on it and was injured when the grinder kicked back, knocked him to the ground, and cut his foot.

Curby Toussaint v. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, et al.

In this case, the Appellate Division, First Department granted said that injured worker wins his claim under Labor Law 241(6) because he was hit in the back by a power buggy being used by an operating engineer on a construction site. There is a law that requires the operators of power buggies to “trained and competent” and “designated.” Since they said that regulation was specific enough to be used under the law and there was no question that the operator was not designated to operate the power buggy, the worker wins and does not need a jury to decide that question. Also, of note here is the fact that the Court cited a case from The Perecman Firm, P.L.L.C., called Sawicki where the Court found a similar regulation for the operation of excavating machines to be specific enough and Sawicki was used to justify their decision here.

Paul Demercurio v. 605 West 42nd Owner LLC, et al

Here is a case involving slip and falls on construction sites. The Court allowed the worker’s case to go forward to a jury trial. The worker slipped and fell on brown paper that had been installed on the floor of an apartment under construction. The Court said that since the worker testified that there was a cleaning agent called “green dust” on the paper which made it slippery, there was a question that needed to be decided by a jury as to whether the “green dust” was a “foreign substance” that should have been remedied as required by the New York State Industrial Code section 23-1.7(d). They also allowed his Labor Law § 200 claim to go forward because there was a question as to whether the general contractor had notice of the “green dust” dangerous condition.

1 2 3 4 8