New York Elevator Accident Lawyers

If you or a loved one has been injured in an elevator-related accident, it is essential to hire a personal injury attorney with experience in handling all types of elevator accident cases. Different codes and laws will apply depending on the type of elevator accident you were involved in, and only a seasoned attorney will know how to navigate these complexities to properly investigate and litigate your case.

For instance, if your elevator accident occurred while you were on duty at a construction site, you will want to hire an attorney with a strong understanding of New York labor law, including Labor Law 240, which deals with gravity-related risks. 

The attorneys at Block O’Toole & Murphy have demonstrated their extensive experience in elevator accident litigation through a strong track record of successful results, including a $12,250,000 settlement for two workers injured when their elevator plummeted several floors, a $7,200,000 settlement in a wrongful death case, and a $7,000,000 settlement for a victim who suffered severe injuries that impaired his mobility after falling down an elevator shaft. Our expertise in New York labor law has also enabled us to achieve excellent results for construction accident victims, including a $4,500,000 settlement for a worker injured while operating a hoist elevator.

Need to Know:

• Liability can be complicated in elevator accidents, particularly when multiple defendants are involved.
• New York’s Labor Law 240, otherwise known as the “Scaffold Law,” seeks to protect workers from gravity-related risks and can be helpful in construction accident cases that involve elevators.
• Expert testimony is a frequent feature of elevator accidents, on both the defense and plaintiff sides.

In This Article:

• Investigating an Elevator Accident
• Case Study: $12,250,000 in Complex Elevator Accident Liability Case
• Finding Flaws in Common Defense Expert Claims
• Types of Elevators Involved in Elevator Accident Cases
• How Labor Law 240 Applies to Elevator Accidents on Construction Sites
• Case Study: $7,000,000 For Employee Who Fell Down Elevator Shaft

Investigating an Elevator Accident

It is best to investigate an accident as soon as possible. At Block O’Toole & Murphy, we strive to travel to an accident scene immediately after taking on a case. We also contact responsible parties at the building and place them on notice to preserve the accident scene. This ensures that any experts we retain on the case have the chance to inspect the elevator and its components before they are repaired or removed.

After a construction elevator accident, the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) will investigate. In the event of a wrongful death, the Fire Department of New York (FDNY) typically preserves an elevator for inspection by the Department of Buildings (DOB). In such cases, we make sure that our attorneys and experts are present for the inspection.

We also take immediate action to request and obtain all maintenance records, inspection records, work orders, capital improvement estimates, building violation notices, and building permits that may be relevant to the case.

These records help us to determine who is at fault or “liable” for the accident. Often, our attorneys find proof that the elevator was improperly installed, reports of unaddressed elevator mechanical issues, or evidence that an elevator had not been maintained regularly. In these cases, the building owner is a liable party — but the owner is not necessarily the only party at fault.

Besides the building owner, the property manager of the building, the elevator maintenance company, and contractors who have performed work on or near the elevator or its shaft may each be held responsible for the accident.

Case Study: $12,250,000 in Complex Elevator Accident Liability Case

In one case, which illustrates how complex elevator accident liability can get, Block O’Toole & Murphy settled on behalf of two workers who were badly injured when the freight elevator they were riding abruptly fell several floors. Both suffered severe neck injuries, and one was permanently disabled from work.

Initially, this seemed to be a fairly straightforward case against building management and the elevator maintenance company. But the DOB investigation revealed evidence that a third party might be liable. The DOB inspector concluded that the elevator malfunctioned because of construction debris caught in the tension sheave, a wheel that helps to balance tension among the cables that support the elevator.

At the time, building management was extending the elevator into a bulkhead on the roof, and the construction company handling the job had to chip away the fireproofing material lining the elevator shaft. Our handling attorneys uncovered mixed reports about whether that construction company made any attempt to prevent debris from falling into the shaft — while one of our clients claimed that he had seen no protection, others testified that tarps had been present.

Moreover, our team challenged whether the building should have kept the elevator in service during the construction project. Making the case even more complicated, another company was undertaking a construction project on a different floor, making it possible that the debris came from their project, since they were working near the shaft. Regardless, the fact remained that the defendants failed to take the necessary precautions to prevent debris from falling into the mechanisms of the elevator while construction was underway.

Our handling attorneys further proved that the accident caused our clients’ injuries contrary to the opinions of the defense experts, who claimed that the amount of force our clients suffered was no greater than if they had stepped off a two-inch curb onto the street — see more on this argument below.

Despite these many challenges, we successfully settled with all four of the defendants for a combined total of $12,250,000 on behalf of our two clients.

Finding Flaws in Common Defense Expert Claims

While it may seem extraordinary that, with two people severely injured, the defense retained experts to argue that our clients were not injured from the elevator that fell several stories, we encounter this defense so often it is commonplace to us.

In addition to other types of personal injury cases, companies involved in elevator construction and maintenance tend to claim that, regardless of any accident that occurred, the safety features in place on their elevators make the specific type of injury the victim is claiming impossible. They will produce experts, in both elevator safety and human biomechanics, who can argue to that effect.

If the possibility of such a defense is raised in your injury case, don’t be surprised or intimidated. These claims are often too bold to stand up to challenges from our own experts or could simply backfire at trial by offending the jury.

In the first place, human bodies differ. It is virtually impossible to develop a “one size fits all” claim as to how any force will affect a human being. Suppose two physically healthy men are in a passenger elevator which falls and comes to a sudden stop. One emerges without significant injury, while the other suffers a herniated disc.

A biomechanical expert testifies that the speed at which the elevator fell would not have been sufficient to herniate a disc. Such a claim might seem to be supported by the fact that the victim’s fellow passenger returned to work without complaint.

However, a good attorney will confront and overcome such a defense by showing the jury the full picture, rather than the limited view of the defense expert. She might tell them, for instance, that the uninjured person is a young man in his early 20s, while the man who herniated a disc is older, in his 60s. This would indicate that the expert for the defense is only considering one type of body in his analysis.

A good attorney, thus, must understand more than the law. She must have a working understanding of how or why our bodies sustain injuries from forces or other trauma. Even if both passengers are healthy and in good shape at their respective ages, generally speaking, the older we get the more fragile our body becomes. Bones can become more brittle, soft tissue like the discs in our spine deteriorate, and this happens to different degrees depending on the person, their lifestyle, history of injuries, or even genetic factors. As a result, it is reasonable and natural to conclude that the older man requires less force to herniate a disc. Critically, age is only one example and there are countless other factors to consider, such as height, weight, and sex, which all affect how a human body will experience and react to physical trauma.

Secondly, having a strong understanding of how the body responds in different positions is critical for analyzing and confronting a defense expert’s opinion. Body position and the direction of force matter. For instance, the amount of force our clients suffered might not have caused them to be injured had they been in a car that was rear-ended, because they were sitting and wearing seatbelts. However, because they were standing upright in an elevator, they were seriously injured. The human spine is not an accordion and, thus, is not built to absorb vertical force that compresses it.

A third key is understanding the human perspective of accidents. A car accident or a trip-and-fall allows for a brief time to react by, for instance, hitting the brakes, turning to avoid the accident, trying to catch your balance, or physically bracing for impact. By their nature, elevator accidents usually occur with no warning from the victim’s perspective and no opportunity to prepare for impact.

All these considerations and more are likely to affect your case, and a seasoned elevator accident attorney will take care to secure all the evidence, testimony, and medical and mechanical experts to confront and unravel the story told by the defense.

Types of Elevators Involved in Elevator Accident Cases

Every interior elevator in New York City is designated either as a P (Passenger) elevator or an F (Freight) elevator. These elevators are engineered to serve separate purposes, and they have different weight restrictions and different motor or machinery requirements. Many elevator accidents occur when building owners ignore these requirements.

Below are a few details about the types of elevators that might be involved in your accident.

• P (Passenger) elevators are designed to carry people. This is the elevator that you would use to travel to the floor of a business in an office building, an apartment in a residential building, or a room in a hotel.
  A passenger elevator should not be used to carry freight unless it has been retrofitted for such a purpose according to proper safety standards. You may hear the term service elevator used to refer to an elevator that has been altered in this manner.

• F (Freight) elevators are designed to carry freight. They are larger than passenger elevators and built to handle heavier loads. Only qualified personnel should travel on a freight elevator, and only for the purpose of transporting freight (i.e. equipment or materials too large or heavy to be safely conveyed by a normal elevator). When simply traveling from floor to floor, they should use a passenger elevator.
• The temporary hoist and lift elevators attached to building exteriors for use in construction projects have their own requirements for safe operation.

There are two other types of elevators in New York: old and new. Some buildings in New York are very old and have elevators we would consider antique. Building owners are not required to remove these antique elevators, but must maintain them in accordance with the building regulations in place at the time they were installed. If a building owner replaces the elevator, it must be “modernized” and built according to today’s standards. As a result, it is critical to know, as early in the case as possible, how old the elevator is so that we can identify which era of code provisions are applicable and plan out the case accordingly.

How Labor Law 240 Applies to Elevator Accidents on Construction Sites

Gravity-related accidents are the most common cause of injury and death on construction sites nationwide. In New York State, section 1 of Labor Law 240, otherwise known as the “Scaffold Law,” seeks to protect laborers from gravity-related risks, such as falling from a height or being struck by a falling object. Laborers who work at a height must be provided with adequately safe devices to do so — from ladders and scaffolds to hoist and lift elevators. The Labor Law requires property owners and general contractors to make sure that their elevation devices are safely constructed, operated, and placed.

If a court determines that Labor Law 240(1) applies to a case, comparative negligence on the part of the plaintiff is not a defense, and the defendant will be held fully liable. In other words, if the defendant in a case committed a safety violation which led to an accident, it doesn’t matter if the victim was also partly responsible for the accident — a court will hold the defendant fully responsible for paying the victim’s damages.

If your elevator accident occurred while you were on duty at a construction site, it is critical that you retain an attorney with expertise in New York Labor Law, who can determine whether Labor Law 240 applies in your case. Block O’Toole & Murphy’s attorneys have achieved significant results for clients in elevator cases through the application of Labor Law 240, including a $4,500,000 settlement for a client who was severely injured when the gate of the hoist elevator he was operating fell and struck his head and neck.

Labor Law 240 does not only apply to construction elevators. In another case that our firm handled, our client, an elevator mechanic, had been working on top of a disabled freight elevator. He had not been informed that the steel escape hatch on the top of the elevator had been removed and replaced with particle board. He fell through the board, and his left arm and shoulder were caught in the lip of the escape hatch. Despite undergoing multiple surgeries, our client was unable to return to work as an elevator mechanic.

The defense contended that Labor Law 240 could not apply to our client’s situation because the hatch door of the elevator was a permanent fixture instead of a safety device. However, our handling attorneys moved for — and attained — summary judgement, meaning that a judge agreed the defense was at fault as a matter of law, and that any trial would only be to determine damages. This gave us the upper hand in negotiations and led to a $3,000,000 settlement for our client.

Case Study: $7,000,000 For Employee Who Fell Down Elevator Shaft

The dangers of using an elevator for an unintended purpose are illustrated by a case that Block O’Toole & Murphy handled for a worker in a large grocery store in Manhattan. Our client, an immigrant from Tibet, worked as a cardboard box baler, responsible for breaking down and disposing of the cardboard boxes in which produce was shipped to the store. While transporting a pallet on a pallet jack — the small, forklift-like device which businesses use to move goods — he backed into the shaftway doors of an elevator (that is, the exterior doors, built into the elevator shaft itself, and not a part of the moving elevator cab). The shaftway doors gave way, causing him to take a fall of 30 feet down the elevator shaft.

The bones in our client’s feet and ankles were shattered to the point where he required nine separate surgical procedures, including the temporary placement of external and internal fixators — metal rods meant to hold the bones together while they healed. Even after these nine surgeries, which included ankle fusion surgery, he only regained enough mobility to walk short distances and only with the aid of a cane.

The elevator that our client had leaned into was a passenger elevator, but the employees of the grocery store, with no freight elevator available to them, had routinely used it for freight purposes. Aware of this, the elevator maintenance and repair contractor had presented the building owner with a proposal to upgrade the elevator to a proper freight elevator. The building owner failed to act on this proposal, which was made less than six months before our client’s accident occurred.

In the meantime, the pallet jacks the employees used to convey freight had been making frequent contact with the shaftway doors, placing stress on the clamps, or gibs, used to prevent the doors from giving way.

Partners Scott Occhiogrosso and Daniel O’Toole, who handled the case, further discovered evidence and testimony which demonstrated that over fourteen service calls had been made regarding that elevator in the months leading up to the accident. They determined that the elevator maintenance company responded to these calls with temporary fixes instead of the thorough repairs that the situation called for — particularly regarding the shaftway gibs, which were not only too weak for use on a freight elevator but also had been improperly installed.

Armed with these findings, our handling attorneys sued and sought compensation for our client from the building owner, the elevator maintenance company, and the grocery store. All three defendants attempted to blame one another for the accident, with the building maintenance company faulting the grocery store for misusing their pallet jacks and the elevator maintenance company faulting the building owner for failing to make the proposed repairs. Through it all, Occhiogrosso and O’Toole held firm in holding all three parties responsible and ultimately negotiated a settlement for $7,000,000 prior to trial, to which all three defendants contributed. 

In-Depth Knowledge, Trial Focus: The Block O’Toole & Murphy Difference

The experienced attorneys at Block O’Toole & Murphy approach elevator accident cases as they approach all cases — with an eye toward trial. Their dedicated approach includes not only frequent communication with experts, but a commitment to learning from those experts. Our lawyers understand the codes and laws specific to elevator accidents, and they draw from a firm base of knowledge rooted in years of successful elevator accident cases.

Our strong track record in elevator accident resolutions includes:

• $5,500,000 for a delivery worker who was seriously hurt after he was struck by the interior gate of a freight elevator in Midtown East
• $4,000,000 recovery for an elevator erector injured as a result of a work accident in Manhattan
• $2,250,000 wrongful death recovery for the spouse of an elevator erector who was fatally injured in a tragic construction accident in Chelsea
• $2,000,000 recovery in a Brooklyn case for a man hurt because of an elevator malfunction
• $1,900,000 settlement in a lawsuit against the elevator repair company when a man riding the elevator was hurt because of sudden deceleration
• $1,500,000 settlement in the case of two auto parts workers who sustained injuries when the freight elevator they were riding fell

If you or a loved one was injured in an elevator-related accident, the attorneys at Block O’Toole & Murphy want to hear from you. We serve all five boroughs of New York City as well as the entirety of New York State. Contact Block O’Toole & Murphy by calling 212-736-5300, or by filling out our online contact form.