Construction Accident Lawsuit & News Blog

Construction Accidents - Construction Agencies - OSHA Regulations

Fri, 4 Jul 2008 10:23:14 -0400

Construction Accidents - Who Is Responsible?

The rate of construction accidents is very high in the US. There can be several causes of such accidents, which may include lack of proper training, poor attitude of the agency towards the safety of its workers, negligence from the workers’ side, unsafe site conditions, high-risk work methods, and use of inadequate equipment. The injuries and death of the workers are usually caused because of the use of heavy equipment, excavation, ladders, and scaffolds. However, there can be several other causes as well, such as electrocution, poisoning, explosions, and burns.

It is mandatory for all construction agencies to follow OSHA regulations. OSHA stands for Occupational Safety and Health Administration. OSHA is a federal agency that enforces federal laws to govern health and safety issues at a workplace. It is the duty of the prime contractor to ensure optimum safety and health conditions at the work place. The lawsuits for construction accidents are usually filed against the prime contractor.

However, there are different factors that are taken into account in this regard. For example, if the prime contractor has farmed out work to a subcontractor, the subcontractor will be held responsible for compliance with the OSHA regulations and for the workers’ safety on the site. However, even in this case, the prime contractor cannot get away easily. They are also held partly responsible for any kind of construction accidents on the site – no matter who hired the employees or the workers in the first place.

Widow Files Suit in Husband's Mine Shaft Death

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 10:36:58 -0400

Widow Files Suit in Husband's Mine Shaft Death

Daniel McFadden was at the mine site for ceremony only.

Retired from Frontier-Kemper Contractors since 1995, McFadden was paying the company a visit on the occasion of its 30th anniversary. He and two other men were touring a construction site at the Gibson County Coal mine in southwestern Indiana where Frontier-Kemper was building a 500-foot ventilation shaft.

But something went horribly wrong that day.

McFadden, 66, and two other men Christopher Todd Richardson, 38, of Cedar Bluff, Va., and Jarred A. Ashmore, 23, of Henderson, Ky., plunged to their deaths.

"I can't express enough these were more than co-workers, these were our very close personal friends," Zugel said. "It's terrible."

No other injuries were reported, and authorities said no one else was in the bucket. The "sinking bucket" can hold six to 10 people and is about 6 feet high, worker John Ervin said.

"I don't understand how this could have happened," Ervin said.

At the start of a shift, the bucket typically takes about six people down to the work area at the bottom of the shaft, Ervin said. The bucket is inspected daily, he said.

Now, McFadden's widow has filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the company that her husband founded in 1965, claiming that the company take adequate safety measures to protect McFadden and the other men.

Attorneys for McFadden's wife, Sandra Lee McFadden, filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court. It seeks $9.5 million in damages, as well as compensation for funeral expenses and lost income.

George Zugel, corporate safety director for Evansville-based Frontier-Kemper, said he was unaware of the lawsuit and declined comment.

The Indiana mine safety agency and federal inspectors, which investigated the fatal workplace accident, have already ruled that the company should have provided better safety measures to protect McFadden, Richardson and Ashmore and others who were working in the mine shaft.

The bucket traveled about 20 feet down the shaft at Gibson County Coal Co. near Princeton Aug. 10 when a shackle attached to the sling became wedged in a mine shaft door and the bucket tipped, causing the men to plunge about 550 feet, according to an Indiana Bureau of Mines and Mine Safety report released Monday.

The federal Mine Safety and Health Administration cited the independent contractor that was constructing the mine shaft for failing to ensure that a worker was controlling the hoist while the bucket was descending the shaft and for failing to ensure the men were wearing harnesses that could have protected them from falling.

"Use of safety belts in this instance may have either prevented or mitigated the severity of this accident," said a federal report that was also issued Monday.

Frontier-Kemper Constructors Inc., was not cited for having the sling attached to the bucket, but the company submitted a safety plan to the MSHA on Aug. 17 that includes a prohibition on attaching straps, lanyards or rigging to the bottom of a bucket that is transporting people, the state's report said.

"They should not have had that on there," said Donald "Blink" McCorkle, deputy commissioner of the state mine bureau, which investigated the accident. "The practice there was that they did it and they did it quite often based on the interviews. It's a shame that they had to have that terrible thing happen to realize that it shouldn't be on there."

Sources: USA TODAY & AP.Google.com

Topics: workers' compensation benefits, injured worker, workplace injury, worker safety, workers' compensation attorney, workplace death, mine accident, wrongful death lawsuit

Staying Safe on the Job When Working With Electrical Equipment

Thu, 5 Jun 2008 09:04:00 -0400

May is Electrical Safety Month and in commemoration of that, the Electrical Safety Foundation International has issued some tips on how workers can stay safe on the job.

Electrical injuries are a common cause of workplace injuries resulting in time lost from worker and workers' compensation claims.

"According to ESFI, more than 46,000 workers suffered electrical injuries within the last decade, and nearly 300 workers die every year from exposure to electrical hazards."

These tips will help you stay safe on the job, particularly if you work in a manufacturing facility.

De-energize Equipment
Working on energized equipment greatly increases the risk of injury and death. Power down whenever possible.

Lockout/Tagout
Lockout/tagout procedures safeguard workers from the unexpected energization or startup of machinery and equipment and also can prevent the release of hazardous energy during service or maintenance activities. ESFI points out that complying with OSHA's lockout/tagout procedures prevents an estimated 120 fatalities and 50,000 injuries each year. Even so, too many workers remain at risk by not following these procedures. Failure to comply with OSHA's lockout/tagout standard regularly is listed as one of the agency's top violations.

Arc Flash Prevention and PPE
According to ESFI, about 2,000 workers are admitted to burn centers each year for treatment of severe arc flash burns. Arc flashes may occur spontaneously or result from conductive dust buildup or bridging electrical contacts with a conducting object. While PPE should always be the last line of defense, wearing proper equipment - such as flame-resistant shirts and pants, safety glasses, face shields and more - can help protect workers in the event of a momentary electric arc, flash fire or exposure to energized equipment.

Work Permits
Work permits should be used when performing work on parts that cannot be de-energized or when testing, troubleshooting or measuring voltage. Work permits include information such as why and how the work will be conducted, safe work practices, appropriate PPE, details about possible hazards and who is authorized to perform the work. These permits require workers to define their work, provide justification for performing it on energized equipment, select proper PPE, define boundaries to prevent unqualified workers from being exposed to hazards and requiring approval to perform the work energized

More Info on Las Vegas Construction Safety

Thu, 5 Jun 2008 08:55:12 -0400

The Las Vegas Sun has become the authority on construction safety thanks its recent series of articles about construction deaths along the Las Vegas strip.

In the past 17 months, 10 construction workers have died on the strip because contractors, eager to finish multi-billion dollar construction projects, have been rushing jobs and ignoring basic safety measures.

The Las Vegas Sun has an impressive archive of articles about the Las Vegas construction deaths, workplace safety measures and OSHA reviews. It's interesting, though at times disturbing, reading.

Tags: workers' compensation benefits, injured worker, workplace injury, construction safety, Las Vegas construction deaths, construction injuries, construction deaths, workers' compensation attorney, OSHA

Crane Accident Inexcusable

Mon, 2 Jun 2008 08:36:22 -0400

On April 24, 2008, a crane was shut down at 333 E. 91st Street and First Avenue in New York's tony Upper East Side. The crane was shut down for unsafe operation and resumed work on May 29, 2008.

On May 30, 2008, two construction workers died at this site because of a crane accident. This is the second fatal crane accident in NYC in less than three months. On March 15, a crane accident claimed the lives of several people after an inspector falsified records that the crane was safe.

What the heck is going on?
In the most current crane accident, the top part of the crane snapped and fell ripping out walls and damaging another apartment building. Prior to today's accident, there were 22 complaints since construction began in July 2007. Six of those complaints were crane related.

The crane used in today's crane accident is no longer being made but its exact model is used elsewhere in the city.

Currently the cause for the crane accident is under investigation. A 30-year-old construction worker and a 27-year-old construction worker were killed in today's crane accident.

Both Mayor Bloomberg and Governor Paterson said these types of construction accidents are too frequent and will be investigated.

Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aaULqDEOhb04

Indiana Miners Suing Alcoa Over Exposure to Toxins

Wed, 21 May 2008 08:54:08 -0400

An Indiana lawsuit takes up the issue of whether miners who were exposed to toxins on the job can sue the company that dumped those toxins. A group of Indiana miners filed suit against Alcoa in 2006, alleging that they were exposed to cancer-causing toxins and other dangerous substances while working in the mines, where Alcoa dumped toxic substances more than 20 years ago. They also argue that they weren't warned of the health risks and that the company should have done so.

The lawsuit was originally filed in Indiana in 2006, but Alcoa unsuccessfully tried to have it moved to federal court. Alcoa argues that any workers who suffered an occupational illness as a result of working in the mine would be covered under the state's workers' compensation laws and therefore the lawsuit should be dismissed. The company also argues that the mine site is safe and that the workers' exposure didn't result "in an excess number of any medical condition," including cancer.

The mine near Boonville, Ind. is the subject of two lawsuits filed by former mine employees. They allege that from 1965 through 1979, the company dumped 65 million gallons of cancer-causing coal tar pitch and 74 million cubic feet of chromium and chromium sludge and other toxic wastes into mine pits. They also allege that the toxins possibly were dumped onto haul roads and other areas of the 5,000-acre section of the mine called the North Field.
The mine workers claim that unlike Alcoa employees, they never were told about the waste content or that it was toxic and were not given any special safety instructions or protective clothing. Cassandra Collins, an Alcoa attorney, argued the mine was operated as a joint venture with Peabody Coal Co., making the workers employees of both companies. Because of this, she argued, Alcoa should be shielded from legal actions by immunity clauses in workers' compensation law. But attorney Peter Racher, who is representing the sick miners, said the two-year statute of limitations on compensation claims expired by the time workers realized they were having health problems that may have been linked to workplace exposures. He also argued many people other than the workers were exposed through recreational use of the property and exposure to contaminated soil brought home on the workers' clothing. Dozens of former workers and their family members have testified in recent years at various depositions and hearings related to the mining permit that they have experienced various cancers and other health issues.

Construction Accidents on the Rise; Inspection on the Decline

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 08:49:21 -0400

Why are construction accidents on the rise? The demand for new construction far exceeds the demand for inspections. In the next decade New York will see a population growth of a million people; they have to live somewhere. Construction is big business.

Recent construction accidents include a nylon sling on a crane snapped, and seven tons of steel fell in Lower Manhattan from the 25th floor of a construction site, severely injuring an architect. A few weeks later, a construction worker, fell 42 stories from a hotel being built by Donald Trump.

Between early 2006 and the middle of 2007, 44 people died on construction sites in Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx. Forty of these dead were non-union jobs involving immigrants. A 52-year-old man was digging a foundation in Brooklyn when the cinder-block wall next door collapsed on him. The wall had not been shored up.

For many smaller projects, there is no one but government to look over the shoulders of contractors. Many of the workers don't speak English, don't have papers, and simply do what they are told. They don't know about safety harnesses or not to drive a forklift with an overly heavy load. These kinds of construction accidents are akin to 19th century coal mining.

SEE: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/nyregion/19about.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Avoidance of Construction Accidents

Mon, 7 Apr 2008 16:41:11 -0400

There are a number of potential accidents that can occur when one is on a construction site. The reason for this is that there are many possibly hazardous conditions on the site. Please note, the important word here is "possibly" because it is not out of the question to be able to avoid a number of mishaps if one is careful. For example, examining equipment for defects prior to use can reduce the potential for accidents. If a drill's blade is not properly installed tightening it would reduce the potential for an injury. Of course, not all hazards are easily noticed or easy to fix particularly when negligence is involved. In that situation seeking the advice of qualified accident experts would be a smart move.

Construction Accidents

Fri, 4 Apr 2008 14:15:29 -0400

When an accident occurs on a construction site it may fall under the banner of a violation of negligence and liability laws. That is, if you work on a construction site and suffer an injury do not listen to unsolicited advice from employers who try to sway your opinion in regards to any assumptions of what types of claims you can receive. Instead, it is critical to speak to a successful construction accident attorney as they will provide you with an honest assessment of the legitimacy of your case and any claim you may be entitled to.Speaking to an attorney is the right course of action to take. Don't let anyone steer you otherwise.

Defective Products and Construction Accidents

Mon, 31 Mar 2008 15:58:42 -0400

It goes without saying that a person who works in construction is reliant on a number of tools in order to properly performs the duties of the job. Of course, it also goes without saying that a tool must operate properly in order to be effective. Additionally, defective products have the potential to course construction accidents. Make no bones about it if you suffer an injury from a defective tool then you may have a strong case for a product liability lawsuit. Keep in mind, product liability injuries are serious as they can led to a lot of work downtime which translates into lost income and wages. Clearly, someone has to be held to account for such an occurrence and it should be the manufacturer of the defective product.