Articles Posted in Construction Accidents

by

In the Cook County personal injury case of Wayne C. Bland and Suzanne Bland v. Citgo Petroleum Corp., 07 L 1633, a company takes responsibility for the negligence of one of its employees. The worker at the Citgo Petroleum Corp.’s Lemont plant left a piping system valve open, thereby releasing hydrofluoric gas into the surrounding areas. The cloud of noxious gases left another man hospitalized and led to the filing of this work injury lawsuit.

The 41 year-old plaintiff, Wayne Bland, was working as a crane operator for Imperial Crane at the time of his work injury. After breathing in the dangerous gas, Bland required a six day hospitalization due to the respiratory damage caused by the toxic gas. Bland was diagnosed with acute respiratory tract damage, which presented as a general chest tightness and a persistent cough. While Bland’s symptoms lasted for several months, his medical providers were unable to find any significant respiratory problems.

Because Bland was not employed by Citgo, it would not be responsible for paying any workers’ compensation he received as a result of his work injury. However, its employee was the cause of Bland’s accident, so by association Citgo was also at fault for Bland’s injury. Therefore, Bland brought a lawsuit against Citgo which accused the petroleum company of being responsible for its employee’s negligence in leaving the pipe valve open and for causing Bland’s subsequent injuries.

Continue reading

by

A Central Illinois product liability lawsuit springing from a construction site injury returned the highest verdict in Tazewell County history. The Illinois jury awarded $13.5 million to the twenty-some year-old plaintiff who suffered a traumatic leg amputation; Justin Stone v. MiTek Industries and Central Illinois Truss, Inc., 10th Judicial Circuit, Tazewell County, Illinois (2011).

At the time of his work injury, 19 year-old Dustin Stone was working on a machine building roof trusses, or roof rafters, which are the triangle supports used to build roofs in homes. The roof truss machine consisted of several different work tables spread out over the length of the 100 ft. long machine. Stone was adding support to the wood trusses by hammering metal plates into the various truss joints.

Stone was standing between two opposite-facing machine tables when another truss operator drove a crane gantry toward the area where Stone was working. Protocol requires the gantry operator to first make sure the aisles are clear of workers; however, this was obviously not done on the date of Stone’s construction site injury. The gantry pinned Stone against a metal rail, crushing his left femur so severely that he required an above the knee amputation of his left leg.

Continue reading

by

A construction job site can be a confusing place. Not only is there the obvious confusion created by the construction itself, but the different levels of workers and managers further complicates matters. The tangled web of responsibility and liability on construction job sites becomes evident in the wake of a construction site injury, as lawyers sit down and try to determine whose to blame.

Consider the Illinois personal injury case of Piotr Mieszkowski v. Patel Builders Inc., Divyadeep Patel v. Illinois Brick Layers Inc., 08 L 4113. Piotr Mieszkowski was working as a brick layer at a job in South Barrington, a northwest suburb of Chicago. While at the construction site, the twenty-nine year-old Mieszkowski was being supervised by his boss from Illinois Brick Layers, Inc. Mieszkowski spent the majority of the morning working on building large stone columns and railings at the Barrington residence.

However, problems arose when Mieszkowski’s boss left the construction site. While his direct supervisor was away, the construction job’s general contractor asked Mieszkowski and his co-worker to help empty a large storage container. It was while performing this task, which had nothing to do with his actual job at the construction site, that Mieszkowski became injured. A large, heavy box fell on his ankle as he was emptying the storage container. Mieszkowski suffered a severe ankle fracture and needed to undergo an open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) surgery during which pins and rods were placed in his ankle to fix the fractured bone in place.

Continue reading

by

Summertime in Chicago is synonymous with construction – every Chicago resident is familiar with the site of orange cones, torn up pavement, and workers flagging cars through the construction zone. And while construction season means longer commutes for Chicagoans and increased traffic delays, it also means risker job conditions for many construction workers and more construction site injuries. The Chicago personal injury lawsuit of Donald Martinelli and Annette Martinelli v. City of Chicago, 06 L 11846, is an example of the dangers of construction work.

In 2002, 52 year-old Donald Martinelli and his co-worker were marking the location of underground telephone cables at a street construction project. While Martinelli and his coworker were SBC Communications employees, the construction site was run and managed by the City of Chicago. Martinelli was marking the cables’ locations at the City’s request.

At the same time this was happening, Oscar Soto was driving his car through the road construction site. When Soto realized the City of Chicago’s construction equipment was blocking his lane of traffic, he made a decision to veer into the oncoming lane of traffic. However, Soto was eventually forced back into his lane by an oncoming vehicle, causing him to run into one of the SBC vans parked on the side of the road.

At the time of the Chicago car accident, Martinelli had finished marking the cable lines and was standing at the back of his SBC van. Martinelli became pinned against the back of his van and suffered a traumatic amputation of his left leg. The above the knee amputation required future medical expenses and resulted in lost wages due to Martinelli’s inability to perform the same type of job duties. Martinelli brought a personal injury claim against Soto and the City of Chicago for the loss of his leg and livelihood, while his wife brought a loss of consortium claim against both parties for the loss of companionship and household assistance.

Continue reading

by

Construction negligence lawsuits can be somewhat confusing insofar as there are typically several entities involved: the general contractor, the project manager, subcontractor, etc. Oftentimes when plaintiffs file a lawsuit following a construction site injury, there is a lot of finger pointing by the defense, so it is crucial that the plaintiff’s attorneys have a clear understanding of who each party is and what their role was on the construction job.

In the construction negligence case of The Estate of John Maggi, etc. v. RAS Development, Inc., No. 1-09-1955, the defendant tried to get the $3.2 million verdict overturned by claiming that the plaintiff had sued the wrong entity. In Maggi, the plaintiff’s attorney filed a lawsuit against the construction site’s general contractor. In its initial complaint the plaintiff identified the general contractor as RAS Wolfram.

The Chicago construction negligence complaint alleged that as the general contractor, that RAS Wolfram was negligent for its failure to provide a safe workplace and inadequately supervising the work of its subcontractors. The decedent, John Maggi, died after falling three stories through an unprotected window. The fall was prompted after the bundle of bricks Maggi was carrying broke apart, causing him to lose his balance and fall through the open window.

Continue reading

by

An Illinois jury entered the highest Cook County verdict award for an adult fracture injury, awarding $1.9 million in Todd D. Smart v. City of Chicago, No. 07 L 14089. The Cook County personal injury verdict was substantially higher than both the plaintiff’s $500,000 demand to settle and the City of Chicago’s $100,000 settlement offer. According to a representative from the City’s law department, the City of Chicago plans to appeal the verdict in the First District Appellate Court.

The Illinois personal injury lawsuit arose out of a bicycle accident involving the 43 year-old plaintiff, Todd Smart. In 2007, Smart was riding his bicycle in Chicago’s Lincoln Park neighborhood, near the intersection of Cortland St. and Marcy St., when he hit a road depression. At the time of the bike accident, the City of Chicago was performing road construction, leaving the road uneven at the time.

Smart was thrown forward over his handlebars as his bicycle came to a sudden stop. As a result of the bicycle accident, Smart suffered from a dislocated shoulder and sustained comminuted bone fractures. Prior to the bicycle accident, Smart led a fairly active lifestyle – not only was he the president of BeTuitive Publishing, but was also a former triathlon competitor.

Continue reading

by

As Chicago nears summer construction season, it becomes increasingly important for Chicago construction employees to practice good workplace safety. Unlike an office job, working construction provides numerous opportunities for accidents to occur. The Illinois personal injury lawsuit of James Zdanwic v. Gatwood Crane Service, Inc., 07 L 9570, is one such example.

In 2006, the plaintiff, James Zdanwic, was working as a tower technician for MDM construction. At the time of the Illinois construction site injury, Zdanwic was working on a job that involved retrofitting a cell tower in Medinah Illinois. The job required a crane, which was leased through Gatewood Crane Service, Inc.

While the Gatewood crane was being operated by a Gatewood Crane Service employee, Zdanwic was assisting the crane operator in the task of pulling out a 1,000 lb. jib. A jib crane is similar to a sailboat boom in that it swings from one side to the other. This 1,000 lbs. fell directly onto of the plaintiff, resulting in severe injuries. In fact, because of the severity of his injuries, Zdanwic has not been able to return to his position as a tower technician, although his employer was able to find him an alternative position as a construction project manager.

Continue reading

by

A Cook County jury has entered its verdict for a Chicago ironworker who tripped over demolition debris at a construction site. The plaintiff, 52 year-old Robert Petrouski, was performing ironwork on a bridge that was being demolished by the defendant, Bradenburg Industrial Service Co. when he was injured. The jury found in favor of the plaintiff and entered a verdict of $436,000 against the defendant in Robert Petrouski v. Brandenburg Industrial Service Co., 06 L-10628.

On October 11, 2004, Mr. Petrouski, a journeyman ironworker, was working below the bridge deck that the Brandenburg employees were demolishing. Mr. Petrouski was carrying equipment to perform his construction job when he tripped over a piece of demolition debris. As a result of his Chicago construction site injury, Petrouski suffered a lumbar disc herniation and a fragmentation of his disc.

While Petrouski contended that the debris he tripped on was left in his work area by Brandenburg’s demolition crew, the demolition company denied that it was performing work above that area. Furthermore, Brandenburg went on to allege that the debris which caused Petrouski’s fall was in fact left in the area by another company.

Continue reading

by

A Cook County, Illinois jury returned a $6.3 million verdict in an Illinois wrongful death case where a 57 year -old electrician died after he was electrocuted and burned in an electrical explosion while working at the Chicago Transit Authority Brown Line substation in 2006.

Charles Ingolia was working under the defendant Target Electric which was serving as the subcontractor overseeing the electrical phase of the project involving the addition of a new rectifier system to power the CTA Brown Line trains and the renovation of the substation near 3360 N. Clark St., Chicago, Illinois. Mr. Ingolia survived two days after the explosion and then passed away.

At the trial in Estate of Charles R. Ingolia v. CTA, et al., 06 L 013106, the family’s lawyers argued that the subcontractor overseeing the electrical phase of the project were responsible for Mr. Ingolia’s injuries and wrongful death. It was also contended that Mr. Ingolia was inadequately instructed on how to clean the new electrical system because it was “going to” be energized. The estate alleged that Target Electric sent the electrician into a 12,600 volt switchgear cabinet without informing him that a portion of the electrical equipment had been energized.

Continue reading

by

A Cook County verdict was handed down on an Illinois personal injury and wrongful death claim involving a father and son who were both injured in the same Illinois construction site accident. The Illinois wrongful death claim was filed on behalf of the father, Herman Calloway, Sr., who was killed instantly at the construction site, ; Estate of Herman Calloway, Sr. v. Bovis Lend Lease, Inc., No. 05 L 8589, while the straight personal injury claim was filed on behalf of the son, Herman Calloway, Jr., who suffered permanent disabling injuries as a result of the construction site injury, Herman Calloway, Jr. v. Bovis Lend Lease, Inc., No. 06 L 2005. The jury found in favor of both plaintiffs for a total of $8.5 million in damages for both claims.

The Illinois construction site accident occurred in 2005, when both Calloway, Sr. and Calloway, Jr. were attempting to locate an electrical line at a construction site at Warrenville South High School. At the time, the Calloways were working in a trench that had been dug in order to allow them to locate the electrical line. Typically, when construction workers dig a trench they use a trench box to support it. A trench box is a metal box that construction workers use to prevent workers from trench cave-ins. Without the trench box there is no support to the walls of the trench and nothing to prevent the trench from caving in.

However, the area where the Calloways were working contained pre-existing manholes, the location of which prevented the construction workers from using the trench boxes. The construction workers did make an attempt to use the trench box, but had to remove it after discovering that the box would not fit. Instead of stopping the job while they worked to find an alternate solution, the job superintendant informed the crew that they still needed to locate the electrical line in that area.

Continue reading