Result: $1.225 Million Settlement for a Laborer Injured in a Fall From an Extension Latter
The Perecman Firm secured a $1,225,000 settlement for a laborer who was injured in a fall from an extension ladder.
The Perecman Firm, P.L.L.C. represented a client who suffered back and neck injuries.
At about 3:30 p.m. on Nov. 20, 2012, the plaintiff, 63, a laborer, worked at a construction site in the Flushing section of Queens. During the course of his work, the plaintiff fell off of a ladder. He fell a distance of six or seven feet, and he landed on a floor. He claimed that he suffered injuries of his back and neck.
The plaintiff sued the site's owner and the construction project's general contractor. He also sued other entities that were believed to be owners of the premises. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants negligently failed to provide a safe workplace. He further alleged that the defendants' failure constituted a violation of the New York State Labor Law.
The plaintiff had separated the two components of an extension ladder, and the accident occurred while he was utilizing the ladder's upper component, whose feet were not protected by the slip-resistant rubber covers that protected the feet of the ladder's lower component. The plaintiff claimed that the accident was a result of the ladder having slipped from beneath him. He claimed that he had not been provided any other means of safely reaching overhead areas.
Plaintiff's counsel contended that the accident stemmed from an elevation-related hazard, as defined by Labor Law § 240(1), and that Villalobos was not provided the proper, safe equipment that is a requirement of the statute.
The site's owner and the construction project's general contractor were deemed liable via summary judgment, and the remaining defendants were dismissed without opposition. The matter proceeded to damages.
The parties negotiated a pretrial settlement. The site's owner and the construction project's general contractor agreed to pay a total of $1,225,000. Their primary insurer tendered its policy, which provided $1 million of coverage, and their excess insurer agreed to pay $225,000.