Articles Posted in Construction Accidents

by

An Illinois jury awarded $2.84 Million to a painter who fractured his heel after falling approximately 15 feet while working at a construction site. His injury required multiple surgeries, resulting in a long period of time off of work and a hefty medical bill.

The painter had been working on a lift at a school in Hanover when the Illinois construction site accident occurred. The plaintiff sued Hoffman Corporation, the general contractor overseeing the construction job, claiming that Hoffman was in charge of the job site safety.

Plaintiff claimed that his injury was of an alleged lack of a front guardrail on the lift he was working on and that Hoffman permitted workers to use those lifts without the guardrail. And while the jury ruled in favor of the plaintiff, the verdict of $2.84 million was reduced to $1.8 million after accounting for comparative negligence.

Continue reading

by

A 41 year old construction worker died when he fell through the elevator shaft of a Chicago Loop building project. The man, a carpenter by trade, was working on a tenant build-out on the 11th floor of the high-rise building when the Chicago construction site accident occurred.

It was alleged in the plaintiffs’ complaint that the building owners were negligent in violating several Illinois safety laws. In addition to failing to maintain the elevator safely or conduct basic inspections of the elevator, the lawsuit filed claimed that the building owner violated Cook County building codes preventing interlocking doors from opening unless the elevator car was present.

It was claimed that the freight elevator where the worker died was antiquated. An example given was that the doors would open while the elevator car was on a different floor. This fact played a large role in this man’s wrongful death because he apparently opened the elevator doors only to discover that the elevator car was actually more than 100 feet below. The worker had intended to enter and operate the elevator, but its absence led to his death.

The Chicago construction worker was survived by his wife and three young children. The case was settled before trial with the assistance of a Cook County Circuit Court judge. Issues of apportionment and contribution are pending between the owner, general contractors, maintenance companies and employer of the deceased.

Continue reading

by

Recently a settlement was reached in an Chicago construction injury case that resulted in a man’s death. The $2.6 million settlement was awarded to the family of a man who’d been struck and killed by a steel pylon that had fallen from a crane. At the time the man was working at an Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) project located on the Kingery/Borman Expressway.

While the man was working for the IDOT the incident actually occurred in Indiana, just over the Illinois-Indian border. Because the injury took place in Indiana the defendant attorneys asked the Circuit Court of Cook County to apply Indiana law instead of Illinois law, specifically where it relates to a $300,000 cap on recoveries. However, the Cook County judge denied the defendants’ motion and Illinois law was applied.

The decedent’s family claimed that the subcontractor, Edward E. Gillen Co., was negligent for its failure to warn and remove workers from the area where the occurrence took place. They further claimed that the crane operator who was employed by Gillen was negligent in failing to warn and handle the crane’s load he was operating.

The case was resolved in a mediation setting by a former Cook County associate judge.

Continue reading

by

Now that the road construction season is upon us in Chicago and Illinois it is important to remember to drive safely and cautiously when in a construction zone. According to a Bureau of Labor Statistics study, between 1995 and 2002, almost 900 road construction workers died from on the job injuries, with over half of those fatalities resulting from being struck by a vehicle.

However, a recent settlement in a Chicago construction injury case highlights that not only drivers and commuters need to be more careful, but that co-workers also need to practice on the job safety. The case in question involved a 21 year-old construction employee who had been assigned to dig trenches. After completing one trench and preparing to dig a second one, the worker was crushed when a truck driven by a fellow construction worker backed into him.

The decedent’s surviving family members claimed that the driver of the construction truck was negligent and had received inadequate training for the specialized truck he was driving, which was a combination back hoe and end-loader. Furthermore, the family claimed that the construction company was also negligent for the work-related injury because they had not carefully supervised this driver to ensure that he operated the truck in a safe and proper manner.

The defendant, employer of the construction truck operator, claimed that the decedent was negligent in failing to keep a proper lookout for his safety. The decedent was survived by his wife and a two-month old son. The case was settled for $4.5 million after a mediation with a former Cook County Circuit judge.

Continue reading

by

Results from a new study show that deaths associated with forklift accidents are rising. Data was collected over a 15-year period by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) under their Traumatic Occupational Fatality surveillance system.

The study showed that forklifts, or powered industrial vehicles, were involved in a significant number of deaths in the workplace. According to the study several different factors contributed to the cause of the Illinois construction site accidents, including the nature of the injury and the decedent’s age, gender, race, occupation, and industry.

Many of the fatalities resulting from forklift overturns might have been prevented if the operators had been restrained with lap or shoulder belts. Careful consideration should be given to separating pedestrian and forklift traffic and restriction of use of forklifts near time clocks, exits and other areas where a large number of pedestrians pass through in a short time.

Continue reading

by

The Illinois Supreme Court recently reversed a prior ruling by the Illinois Appellate Court regarding employer immunity under the Workers’ Compensation Act (Daniel Ioerger, et al. v. Halverson Construction Company, Inc., No. 105912 (December 18, 2008).) In 1999, Midwest Foundation Corporation and Halverson Construction Company entered into a joint venture for an Illinois Department of Transportation project to repair a bridge over the Illinois River.

The profits, losses and liabilities resulting from the project were to be shared 60-40 between the two companies, with Midwest getting the larger share. As part of this agreement, Midwest was responsible for providing the labor and covering the workers’ compensation insurance.

During the project, four of Midwest’s iron workers were working from a platform suspended over the Illinois River. While they were working the platform collapsed, which caused them to fall into the river. Three of the iron workers were injured and one died.

The three injured workers and the estate of the deceased worker received workers’ compensation benefits through Midwest’s workers’ compensation insurance. But the four parties also filed an Illinois construction site accident lawsuit against Halverson, the joint venture, and various other defendants. The plaintiffs sought to recover damages for their injuries and the one worker’s death.

Continue reading

by

Consider a case where an Illinois roofer was burned when a tar pot ignites. This construction worker can claim damages against the site developer for negligence. Many building project developers are mindful of the fact that many workers in the construction industry are exposed to dangerous conditions. But in some cases a project owner’s negligence may result in a subcontracted workers’ injury, in which case the project owner would be liable.

This situation applies when the control of the job’s safety clearly rests in the hands of the builder or owner of the project. The relevant company can be held responsible for a construction accident when one of its workers is placed in such a dangerous situation that his/her injuries were foreseeable and predictable.

Let’s return to the example of the roofer working with a pot of molten hot roofing material that resembles tar. This heated material is smoothed over the roof and will waterproof the roofing surface once it cools and hardens. In order to get this roofing material up to the roof that may be some 30 feet above ground, several construction workers must hoist the heated containers to the roof. Dealing with such burning hot material is inherently dangerous and requires the owner to provide a safe environment in which to complete this process.

Continue reading

by

Illinois Appellate Court ruled that Illinois Insurance Guaranty Fund (IIGF) is responsible for paying Illinois workers’ compensation benefits to a worker who was injured on the job (Virginia Surety Co. v. Adjustable Forms, Inc.). This ruling came in spite of IIGF’s claims that the Chicago worker was also covered under Virginia Surety Co.’s policy and therefore it should be paying the Illinois workers’ compensation benefits.

Michael Hadrys, an Adjustable Forms employee, was injured while working on a construction project in Illinois called the River East Project. And as is typical in the construction industry, his insurance was an owner controlled insurance program (OCIP) meaning that it was covered through the owner of the job and not his direct employer. The OCIP was being covered by Reliance Insurance Co., who have since folded, and that’s when things get complicated.

Typically, when an insurance company folds all its claims are handled by the Illinois Insurance Guaranty Fund (IIGF), provided that there is no other insurance company involved to take over the claim. However, in this case because Hadrys’s employer, Adjustable Forms, actually also had its own insurance through a different provider, Virginia Surety Co. Therefore the IIGF argued that it was not responsible for paying Hadrys’s workers’ compensation claim, but that Virginia Surety Co. was. Yet the Illinois Appellate Court disagreed.

The case revolved around whether or not Virginia Surety Co. was actually responsible for insuring Hadrys at the time of his Illinois construction site injury. The IIGF said that it was because it was an alternate form of insurance for Hadrys’s employer. Virginia Surety Co. said that it was not because Adjustable Forms insurance policy stated that it would cover injured employees unless they had other insurance.

Continue reading

by

A recent decision by an Illinois Appellate Court continued the debate regarding the interpretation of the construction statute of repose (Illinois Code of Civil Procedure, Section 13-214(b)).

The construction statute of repose states:

No action based upon tort, contract or otherwise may be brought against any person for an act or omission of such person in the design, planning, supervision, observation or management of construction, or construction of an improvement to real property after 10 years have elapsed from the time of such act or omission.

The statute seeks to protect construction parties from having to defend against stale claims. Since its inception the statute has been a balancing act between the rights of the injured party and the rights of the party responsible for the construction. Illinois courts generally have limited the statute to apply to claims of construction or improvement to real property. However, where some courts differ is on claims brought as to duties of maintenance and inspection.

In Ryan v. Commonwealth Edison Co., Ryan, an electrician, was injured when a circuit breaker exploded. He claimed that ComEd was responsible for the electrical current flowing into the building and that the severity of his accident was increased by ComEd’s negligence regarding its ongoing maintenance duties. ComEd argued that the claim should be barred under the statute because the injury resulted from design flaws in the power system when it was installed 20 years ago, which would place it well outside the 10 year limit imposed by the statute. ComEd’s motion for summary judgment was granted, but the 1st District Appellate Court, Sixth Division, overturned this decision stating that the injury was the result of poor maintenance and inspection rather than design flaws in the original power system and therefore the statute does not apply.

This circuit’s decision focuses on the continuing acts related to the product, rather than the date of the original design of the product. That is significant in that the court looked beyond a hard and fast date of design and instead examined the entire fact background of the power system. The ruling is fair and just and may lead to decisions based on the facts, rather on a certain date of installation, design, sale or manufacture of a product. Motions for summary judgment will be denied where genuine issues of material fact are open for a jury to decide.

Continue reading