Articles Posted in Slip and Fall Injury

Published on:

When a person is injured while on their jobs, the case is generally handled under the Worker’s Compensation Laws of the State of New York. However, under these laws, if the person is determined to have suffered from a grave brain injury, then the person is given leave to file a lawsuit against their employer, or in some cases, the property owner. In the case of people who work in the construction trade, it is important that they are given leave to pursue other avenues if they suffer from a personal injury that is severe while they are working on a job. One such incident involved a contractor who was working on a high ladder at the Park Terrace Gardens, Inc., in 2004.

He fell from the ladder and suffered from a brain injury. He contends that his brain injury was grave and so severe that he is unable to work. He filed a lawsuit against his employer and the property owner for monetary damages to help him maintain his home and family. The property owner countered his claim by stating that they did not believe that the man’s injury is grave as defined by the Worker’s Compensation laws of New York. In order to be considered a grave injury, the injury must be pervasive enough that it interferes with his ability to function on a daily basis. It must also be considered a permanent injury. The property owner contends that the injury is not permanent in nature and that there is a chance that the man will recover.

The man’s employer filed a motion to grant him summary judgment denying the claims of the property owner that they should have common-law indemnification. The court agreed and reversed the previous decision. The property owner also filed a motion for summary judgment releasing him from any liability in the lawsuit because of contractual indemnification. The property owner claims that the subcontractor who was the employer of the injured worker, had signed a contract with the property owner when he started the work on the property. He claimed that in that contract was specific wording that released him from any liability associated to any injuries incurred by any of the subcontractor’s workers. The court reviewed the copy of the contract that was provided by the property owner and agreed that the wording was specific to remove the liability from the property owner. Further, the employer moved that the evidence produced at trial by the owners of the property, demonstrated that the injured worker’s injury was not permanent. The evidence demonstrated that the brain injury was treatable and did not prevent him from conducting his daily activities. They also contend that the brain injury does not prevent this employee from becoming employed again in the future.

Continue reading

Published on:

A man was injured when he fell off a ladder while performing painting work at a loading dock at the Hotel. The man struck his head on the concrete sidewalk, sustaining a traumatic brain injury. The building is divided into two units: a Hotel unit and an Entertainment/Retail unit. The loading docks are owned by the Entertainment/Retail unit. The man was an employee of the managing agent of the Hotel unit which is a former owner of the Hotel unit.

There was an easement that allowed the Hotel unit to use portions of the building owned by the Entertainment/Retail unit, including the loading docks. The City of New York and the managing agent entered into a Declaration of Easement and Operating Agreement (DEOA) for the subject premises. Article of the DEOA defines the term owners as a collective reference to the Hotel Property Owner and the Entertainment/Retail Property Owner or either of them. The DEOA states that the Owner hereby grants to and declares for the benefit of the Hotel Property Owner, a non-exclusive casement for the use of the loading docks located in Entertainment/Retail Building as shown on the Attached Plans. However, the section also provides that the Entertainment/Retail Owner shall be responsible for the Maintenance of the loading docks, provided, however, that the Nassau Hotel Owner shall bear a share of such Maintenance costs based on the Owner Building Area Ratio. DEOA states that the Owners shall have the right to retain a building manager and that the building manager is to maintain the sidewalks, building security, the Service Elevator, shared Easement areas located in the cellar of the Entertainment/Retail unit, the loading docks as the Owners shall desire. It further states that the parties agree that the managing agent shall serve as the initial building manager.

By purchase agreement, the managing agent sold the Hotel unit to a real estate investment trust company. Subsequently, the managing agent assigned all of its rights in and under the DEOA, including all such rights associated with the Hotel Property Owner designee, to the real estate investment trust company, as assignee.

Continue reading

Published on:

A man sustained severe personal injuries during the course of his employment when he fell from a ladder in a warehouse owned by the accused warehouse corporation. He commenced an action alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law. The warehouse corporation brought a third-party action against the Dollar Store in Westchester which is the man’s employer to seek common-law and contractual indemnification. In two separate motions, the employer moved for summary judgment to dismiss the third-party complaint. Supreme Court denied both motions, finding issues of fact as to whether, under the Workers’ Compensation Law the man sustained a grave brain injuryand whether the employer had contractually agreed to indemnify the warehouse corporation.

Workers’ Compensation Law permits an owner to bring a third-party claim against an injured worker’s employer in only two circumstances: when the injured worker has suffered a grave brain injury or the employer has entered into a written contract to indemnify the owner. The employer asserts that the warehouse corporation failed to raise an issue of fact as to the applicability of either exception to the prohibition against third-party claims against the employers.

A grave injury is defined, in relevant part, as an acquired brain injury caused by an external physical force resulting in permanent total disability. Although the statute does not define permanent total disability, the Court of Appeals has determined that a brain injury results in permanent total disability under the Workers’ Compensation Law when the evidence establishes that the injured worker is no longer employable in any capacity. Even the employer sustained its initial burden of establishing as a matter of law that the man did not sustain a grave injury, the evidence submitted in opposition to the motion was sufficient to raise a triable question of fact.

Continue reading

Published on:

Plaintiff is a sixth grader who instituted a claim for damages against his school when he was seriously injured when he fell down an flight of stairs on his way to lunch. On January 30, 2021, plaintiff testified that he had been in math class on the second floor right before lunch. According to plaintiff, his math teacher never escorted her class to the lunchroom and that day was no exception. Plaintiff stated that at the sound of the bell, he and his friend headed to one stairwell, while the rest of the class went to the stairwell at the other side of the hall. His friend did not see any adults in the stairwell when he got there, but there were a group of older boys there who moved over as he and his friend approached. Plaintiff testified that he suddenly heard footsteps which sounded like they were coming from a herd of buffalo and the next thing he remembered was waking up in the school nurse’s office with a tissue on his forehead and blood stains on his shirt. Because of the fall, plaintiff suffered brain injury coupled with excruciating pain as being in his head, neck, and lower back. Additionally, his arms and leg were swollen and sore and he was in a neck brace.

In a testimony, plaintiff presented the written policy of IS 292 to have a teacher escort the sixth graders down to lunch from their second floor classrooms. Plaintiff claims that his teacher’s negligent failure to do so proximately caused his injury. According to plaintiff, he has a much harder time understanding his schoolwork since his accident and, as a result, his grades have substantially dropped. He also is unable to remember more than one item at a time and feels “dumb and filtrated. Plaintiff testified that he planned to attend college to study graphic design.

The Brooklyn jury found defendants are negligent in the supervision of plaintiff and found that that negligence was a substantial factor in causing the injuries sustained by him. Defendant move to have the judgment set aside or have a new trial on the issue of liability or in the alternatively, for a new trial on the issue of damages on the grounds that the awards are unsupported by evidence. The plaintiff sought for an increase in the award of damages.

Continue reading

Published on:

In the matter of fatalities due to head injuries, New York Brain Injury Lawyers have learned that motor vehicle accidents are the vast majority of cases. In the United States, fire arms and unintentional falls come a distant second and third. The motor vehicle deaths were more common among young people, from 15 to 24 years of age, while the deaths from Slip and Falls were far more prevalent among those over 75 years of age.

When it came to head injuries causing comas, motor vehicles were again the most frequent cause. Head injury was most likely to occur when the injured person was out of odors and traveling by motor car during the warmer months of the year on a weekend.

The vast majority of transport-related injuries were due to road crashes, New York Brain Injury Lawyers discovered. Most of these were to the occupants of vehicles. Children were more likely to be injured than pedestrians or cyclists.

Continue reading

Contact Information