making
headlines

$23,000,000 Pre-Trial Recovery in Negligence Case

In this construction site negligence, the plaintiff alleged that he fell 25 feet to the ground from the makeshift box on a forklift which was transporting them to the roof of a grocery store construction in order to retrieve a tool that was left on the rooftop. As a result of the fall, the plaintiff's spinal cord was severed and the plaintiff was rendered a paraplegic.

The defendant denied liability and disputed the nature and extent of the plaintiff's damages.

The 29-year-old male plaintiff who was employed as a temporary worker by a subcontractor and had no prior construction experience, was working on the construction site at the construction of a supermarket. On March 17, 2006 the plaintiff and a co-worker were told by the defendant foreman to retrieve a piece of equipment from the roof due to possible inclement weather. The defendant instructed the two men to climb into a makeshift plywood box which was being used to transport construction debris and he would lift them to the roof using a Caterpillar forklift. The defendant was raising the men and the forklift was almost at full extension when the makeshift box they were riding in came apart. The co-worker was able to jump onto the roof of the store, the plaintiff however fell 25 feet to the ground. As a result of the forceful impact, the plaintiff's spine was severed. He was rendered a paraplegic as a result of the incident.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant foreman was negligent in instructing the plaintiff and his co-worker to get into the makeshift box and in transporting them using the forklift. The plaintiff maintained that the defendant assured the plaintiff that the setup was safe. The plaintiff maintained that the defendant admitted that he was not supposed to use the forklift to lift the workers as he did and despite having been instructed by the general contractor not to do so, he did it anyway, disregarding the safety of the workers. The plaintiff contended that the defendant knowingly violated safety rules in failed to use an OSHA approved metal cage to raise workers to an elevated site. Moreover, the plaintiff maintained that despite the makeshift human transporter the forklift itself was not rated to lift humans and constituted a safety violation.

The defendant disputed the nature and extent of the plaintiff's injuries and damages which were extensive.

The parties agreed to a total settlement of $23,000,000 which included $11,350,000 from the general contractor, $6,000,000 from the personnel company from one insurance policy and another award of $6,000,000 on a second policy anticipated shortly.

Reference

Benjamin Wohlfert vs. Gerald Bates, et al. Case no. CV08-5014761S; Judge Radcliff, 10-20-11.
Attorney for plaintiff: Joel T. Faxon of Stratton Faxon Trial Lawyers LLC in New Haven, CT. Attorney for defendant: Harold J. Friedman of Friedman Gaythwaite Wolf & Leavitt in Portland, ME.

Commentary

This case is reported to be the largest pre-trial personal injury settlement in Connecticut's history. The settlement figure was so large due to the extensive future medical care and expenses facing the plaintiff throughout the remainder of his life.

The plaintiff's orthopedic surgeon called the plaintiff's injury "one of the worst spinal injuries he'd ever seen in over 3,500 spinal surgeries." The plaintiff underwent spinal fusion surgery, two months of hospitalization and then several more months of rehabilitation at a Colorado rehabilitation facility. The plaintiff suffered complications as a result of his injury, including a MRSA infection and had to have a portion of his hip removed. The plaintiff was anticipated to require $10,000,000 in future care for the remainder of his life expectancy. He is also subject to skin ulcers which have occurred several times since his injury and have required debridement and removal of rotted skin.

The plaintiff had been hired by a temporary agency which provides staffing for construction sites this afforded him an easier time to resolve his claim as opposed to a regular employee since the general contractor did not have the benefit of raising a worker's compensation bar to the civil suit. The foreman had also been hired by a temporary employment agency.

Numerous fines and penalties were levied against the general con- tractor for the job due to the failure to use OSHA approved steel cages to elevate the workers. In addition, the forklift used by the defendant was not approved for such use. In fact, the general contractor had specifically instructed the defendant not to lift people with the forklift. During his deposition, the defendant admitted that he disregarded the instruction and lifted the men anyway. The defendant hired an expert who opined that while he was knowingly violating safety rules, the defendant was experiencing temporary insanity at the time and should not be held liable for that reason. The argument was not helpful to the defendant's case.