Kenneth Rothweiler, Nancy Winkler and Dino Privitera recovered $3.025 million for the family of a young man who was tragically killed in a construction accident.
The 23 year old young man was working as a roofer's helper for a construction company that was renovating an office building in New Jersey. During renovations, it was discovered that the existing roof had become rusted and rotted and needed to be replaced with a new metal overlay. As part of the renovation project, holes had been unnecessarily cut into the roof for the return and supply ducts, which created a cantilevered condition where only one side of the hole opening was supported. At the time of the accident, the plaintiff was carrying a new sheet of metal for the roof when the cantilevered metal decking bent like a trap door under his weight.
Despite valiantly struggling to save himself, the plaintiff plunged through the roof opening approximately 25 feet to the concrete floor below. The plaintiff was not wearing any fall protection equipment at the time of the accident. Immediately after the fall, the plaintiff was unconscious and struggling to breathe. After being rushed by emergency personnel to a local hospital, physicians determined that the plaintiff's catastrophic injuries were irreversible and plaintiff's parents then made the heart-wrenching decision to remove him from life support.
An investigation was launched by OSHA, which cited two separate contractors at the work site for "serious" violations, including failing to determine if the walking/working surface of the roof had the strength and structural integrity to support workers safely and failing to have workers equipped with appropriate fall protection equipment, such as harnesses. In the days before the plaintiff's fatal accident, it was determined that companies working on the roof renovation project knew that the roof was dangerous and that roof work should be halted until a structural engineer was able to assess the integrity of the roof, but these companies did not otherwise warn or stop the plaintiff or his co-workers from going up on the roof on the day of the accident. Had proper fall protection been provided to workers or had the companies involved in supervising and managing the renovation project properly warned plaintiff of the fall hazard or halted construction activity until it was safe to perform work on the roof, the plaintiff would still be alive today.
The result achieved for the family was especially remarkable given the vigorous defense mounted by the contracting Defendants. Each of the Defendants denied culpability for Plaintiff's death, asserting, among other things, that they were immune from suit, owed no duty of care to ensure a safe work environment, did not control the worksite, acted with requisite care in discharging their respective obligations, and that Plaintiff's accident and injuries were caused by his own negligent conduct. Defendants also hotly contested the damages as well, arguing that Plaintiff had not sustained any conscious pain and suffering as a result of the accident and that Plaintiff was not entitled to recover economic damages for loss of earning capacity. A settlement was reached with all of the defendants after jury selection in Philadelphia.
