Truck Accident Lawyer Blog 24/7

Published on: May 7, 2014

Labor Law §§240 (1) and 241 (6)…cont

by Stephen Bilkis

The project manager for the construction site testified that it was either his job or the job of the supervisor/foreman to tell delivery trucks where to put their loads. He testified that he was notified that a delivery was going to be made to the site that morning and that in turn called the supervisor. He stated that he told the supervisor to only put two or three pallets on the second floor and no more than that. He stated that the supervisor said that he would comply. After the accident, the project manager testified that the supervisor came to him and apologized. The project manager stated that the supervisor had confessed to him to having more than three pallets put on the second floor because “he wanted to make his job easier, so he would not have to go down to the ground floor.” The project manager also testified that he had told them that even with only the three pallets on the second floor that they would need to be spread out to the side walls after they were placed on the second floor. He stated that he learned later that the laborers had been unable to keep up with the speed of the delivery truck in placing the pallets.

The injured laborer filed his lawsuit citing breaches of Labor Law §§240 (1) and 241 (6) requesting a summary motion to show negligence against the two companies that were in charge of the construction site and its safety. Under Labor Law §240 employers are required to provide safety devices to prevent falls for workers who are working at elevations. In this case, the company failed to provide any type of safety device and so they are liable under this law for the employee’s injury. The law states, “All contractors and owners and their agents, except owners of one and two-family dwellings who contract for but do not direct or control the work, in the erection, demolition, repairing, [or] altering . . . of a building or structure shall furnish or erect, or cause to be furnished or erected for the performance of such labor, scaffolding, hoists, stays, ladders, slings, hangers, blocks, pulleys, braces, irons, ropes, and other devices which shall be so constructed, placed and operated as to give proper protection to a person so employed.” In this case, the company failed to abide by these restrictions and the employee was injured. The court finds them liable under this section.

Labor Law § 241 (6) states, “All areas in which construction, excavation or demolition work is being performed shall be so constructed, shored, equipped, guarded, arranged, operated and conducted as to provide reasonable and adequate protection and safety to persons employed therein or lawfully frequenting such places.” Clearly, this was not the case in this situation. The supervisor, knowing the danger to the employees if the load was placed on the unfinished floor continued to command the delivery driver to overload the floor until it collapsed injuring the victim.

Published on: May 4, 2014

Labor Law §§240 (1) and 241 (6)

by Stephen Bilkis

On March 12, 2002 a building was under construction at 195 St James Place in Brooklyn, New York. A cement bricklayer was working laying cement blocks on the second floor of the building. The second floor was partially constructed with metal beams and decking, but the front wall was still open. A crane type of machine that is used to place pallets of materials on the upper floors of the building was brought in to place several fully loaded, very heavy pallets on the second floor.

Almost as soon as the pallets were placed, the cement brick layer went over to them to get a bag of cement. As he approached the pallets, the floor gave way under the weight of the pallets. The cement brick layer and the heavy materials that were on the pallets, plummeted 15 feet to the lower floor causing the victim to sustain severe injuries. The victim filed a lawsuit against the company who delivered the materials that collapsed the floor and against the company that the construction supervisor worked for.

The driver of the crane type truck that delivered the heavy materials to the site testified at trial. He stated that when he arrived at the site and saw the condition of the building, he prepared to unload the truck on to the sidewalk. He was approached by a supervisor of the construction site who told him that he would need to lift the pallets up to the second floor. He testified that he informed the supervisor that the pallets weighed much too much to be loaded directly on to the second floor. He advised the supervisor that he thought the weight would cause the floor of the building to collapse.

Published on: April 23, 2014

On December 29, 2003 a worker arrived at a job site at 1955 Second Avenue

by Stephen Bilkis

On December 29, 2003 a worker arrived at a job site at 1955 Second Avenue, New York, New York to install a fence. The worker and his associates were all employees of a sub-contractor for a larger project. Their job was to install the fence. The larger project was for the New York Housing Authority. A different company was installing fuel oil tanks both below and above ground at the housing complex. Whenever a tank needed to be installed, a temporary chain link fence needed to be put up around it. One of those tanks was in the rear yard area at 1955 Second Avenue. The worker and his three co-workers parked their work truckon Second Avenue and unloaded the compressor. The compressor was very heavy, but it was on wheels.

The transport of the compressor was achieved with three men pushing the compressor while a fourth stood in front between handles like a rickshaw to pull and steer it. As they were moving the compressor down Second Avenue, one of the wheels jammed into a hole or depression in the roadway causing it to tilt to one side. The jarring motion of the compressor shoved the victim knocking him to the street. He sustained injuries in the fall. The victim filed a labor law claim because he contends that the City of New York failed to provide a safe place for him to work. His suit was filed against the New York City Housing Authority and against the companies that were in charge of the construction. Since he elected to receive worker’s compensation benefits, he was not allowed by law to file any direct lawsuit against the company that he was working directly for.

The Supreme Court ruled that since the victim was not able to show that the city had any prior knowledge of the sink hole that caused the compressor to tilt, it could not be held liable for any negligence in not having it fixed before the victim had his accident. Further, the victim’s claims against the companies that operated the construction site were dismissed. On the day of the accident, the only company employees that were at the site were the co-workers of the victim and the victim himself. There were no representatives of the charge companies on scene nor were they supervising or directing the task.

Published on: March 6, 2013

Following the accident, the injured party filed a lawsuit against the Water Department and the Town of Hempstead.

by Stephen Bilkis

In fall of 1989, an employee of the water department of the Town of Hempstead borrowed a city pick-up truck to drive it home. He had been allowed on several prior occasions to borrow the city truck to get home. He believed that it was OK for him to borrow it on this date to get home. On his way home, he was involved in an auto accident that resulted in serious personal injury. Following the truck accident, the injured party filed a lawsuit against the Water Department and the Town of Hempstead.

The Town of Hempstead countered that they do not feel that they should be held liable since the employee was not at work or engaged in any city business at the time of the accident. Further, he had not requested permission to borrow the truck on this date. The other times that he had been permitted to borrow the truck; he had asked for and received permission to do so. This was not the case on the night of this incident. In fact, the Staten Island employee’s job for the city did not require the use of a vehicle at all. The employee even testified that he had received specific instructions prior to the date of the accident not to take a truck home. He advised in testimony on several different occasions that no one had given him permission to use the truck on that night. He advised that he took it anyway because he needed to get home. The evidence that was presented in reference to the employee being told specifically that he could not take the truck home was not argued by either side. However, there were no prior violations by this employee or any other on file prior to the accident of the “no personal use” policy that had been implemented in the fall of 1989.

The Justices, however, ruled that since the employee had been allowed on prior occasions to use the truck, he would have believed that there was an inference of implied permission. Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388 (1) states that an owner of a motor vehicle is liable for the negligence of one who uses or operates the vehicle with the owner’s express or implied permission.

Published on: February 18, 2013

The incidents surrounding the accident are that a gas station was under construction on the corner

by Stephen Bilkis

On June 3, 2004 on Jamaica Avenue near the intersection with Route 112 in the Town of Brookhaven, Suffolk County, New York, a man was involved in a three car truck accident that resulted in serious personal injury to a driver of a black Hyundai. The incidents surrounding the accident are that a gas station was under construction on the corner. The construction manager of the gas station operated a white van that was illegally parked in front of the no stopping or parking sign on the side of the roadway. A dump truck also working on the gas station was dropping off a dumpster at that location and was blocking part of the roadway. The driver of the dump truck stated that he put out cones and set his lights to emergency flash to let oncoming traffic know that there was a hazard. The first vehicle in the accident completed a left hand turn onto the roadway and was blocked by the dump truck. She stopped in traffic to wait for the dump truck to move. The second vehicle did not see her stop and struck her vehicle, which knocked her into a third vehicle and ultimately it was knocked in to the vehicle of the victim on the opposite side of the roadway. The victim filed a lawsuit against the construction manager for causing the truck accident. The construction manager alleges that he was not responsible for any vehicle other than his white van and that the dump truck was not his or in any way under his control. He states that liability should be attached to the dump truck company and not to him.

The Nassau Court hearing this matter states that there are serious issues of fact that need to be determined. Whenever such issues of fact exist, it is incumbent upon the Court to ensure that a jury hears the arguments. Any motions for summary judgment must be denied as a matter of course in such circumstances because the Court cannot determine which issues of fact are credible and which ones are not credible. Because material facts of this accident are in dispute or different inferences may reasonably be drawn as the facts of this case, the Supreme Court must deny the motion for summary judgment as requested by the construction manager and his company. Only a trial can resolve issues of fact that are presented.

Issues of law are constantly changing. A person who is not specifically trained in the law cannot begin to know what all of their rights are without the assistance of a professional. Here at Steven Bilkis and Associates, we provide Truck Accident Attorneys, Injury Lawyers, Big Rig Jackknife Injury Attorneys, and 18 Wheeler Crash Injury lawyers. Commercial Truck Accident Lawyers will stand by you and ensure that your rights are protected. Wrongful Death Attorneys can argue your side and make sure that you and your loved ones are considered. We make sure that you are rightfully awarded compensation for your suffering.

Published on: February 8, 2013

Driver falls off his truck and sustains injuries

by Stephen Bilkis

October 29, 1954 a Manhattan husband and father of two died because of an accident while he was working for a machine company. On that day, the man was walking back toward his company truck that he had parked a few moments before. He had been talking to some of the other employees and was going back to get into his truck. A few minutes after walking away from them, the other workmen heard him fall and turned around to see the employee on the ground with his hands on his head. He was about ten feet from the rear wheel of his truck.

None of the other employees saw what happened before he fell or even how he fell. There was speculation that he had fallen off of his truck, but no one actually saw him fall. The truck had mud on the tires and wheel wells, the fallen employee had no mud on him. The employee had a fracture to his skull and had suffered a stroke before dying. The issue here is which came first. Did he have a stroke and then fall fracturing his skull or did he fall, fracture his skull and the fracture led to the stroke. The only evidence presented at trial of a fall from the truck was on the attending physician report and that doctor stated that he had been told by one of the other employees that the victim had fallen off of the truck.

The company brought forth medical records from 1952 when that particular driver had been rehired by the company. The doctors who had examined him had recommended that he not be rehired because his health was not suitable for the job. The doctor at that time had diagnosed him as overweight, with excessive hypertension, arteriosclerosis and alcoholism. This brings the concern back to the medical report from the date of the Truck accident that lists the cause of the injury as a fall from a truck. The doctor testified that he obtained that information from other employees. Each of the employees that was present on that date has testified and each one stated that they did not tell the Queens doctor that they saw him fall from the truck. In fact, they each stated that he was about ten feet from the truck when he fell and none of them saw him fall.