$8,000,000 Settlement for Construction Worker Who Fell Through Rotted Subflooring

Inside our partners’ fight to secure compensation for a worker who suffered severe spinal injuries after a fall on an unsafe construction site.

Rotted Floor Collapse Causes Severe Spinal Injuries

Our client had been working for a company that performed building preservation work. One of his job sites had a leaky roof, which had caused the floor on the top floor to rot and become unstable. Our client and his coworkers had been asked to replace the rotted subflooring with fresh plywood before it could cause an accident.

The property owner and general contractor knew that the floor posed a risk to anyone who walked over it – that was the very problem our client had been hired to address. However, none of the workers on site that day were told to wear any fall protection equipment before starting the job. As a result, while our client was bringing the new plywood over to the rotted floor, the subfloor gave way and sent our client falling to the ground below.

Our client landed on his feet before falling backward, sustaining a serious burst fracture in his lumbar spine. The fracture caused bone fragments to shoot into the spinal canal, resulting in stenosis and a partial spinal cord injury. These injuries can be incredibly dangerous – severe cases can lead to permanent paralysis – so when doctors at the hospital discovered the fracture, our client immediately underwent emergency spine surgery.

Case Pursued Under Labor Law 240(1) Against the General Contractor and Property Owners

The defendants knew about the water damage – and the hazard it created – over a month before our client’s accident. Though they were aware of the risks, they did nothing to protect the workers, even when our client complained that the conditions were unsafe.

This formed the basis for our attorneys’ argument: under Labor Law 240(1), general contractors and property owners must have proper safety equipment to protect workers from gravity-related accidents. If they do not, they will be legally deemed responsible for any accidents that occur.  

The defense, however, tried to deflect responsibility for our client’s accident in a number of ways. First, the defendants claimed that harnesses had been available to workers in the company van, but our client had chosen not to wear one.

Partners Jeffrey Block and S. Joseph Donahue, who handled the case, quickly pointed out that no one had been wearing a harness, and that the person in charge on site had never instructed anyone to do so. Even if a harness had been worn, they argued, there was no anchor point for workers to tie off at, making the harnesses effectively useless even if they had been worn.

Defendants then claimed that barricades had been constructed around the rotted floor to prevent any falls. During the investigation, however, our attorneys uncovered photographs from the scene before the accident, which did not show any barricades around the site. Armed with strong evidence to refute the defense’s claims, our attorneys filed a motion for summary judgement under Labor Law 240(1).

Trial Court Denies Motion, Attorneys Launch Strategic Appeal

Unfortunately, the trial court denied our attorney’s initial motion, stating that there were still open questions regarding liability. The lower court judge believed that, because our client had been aware of the unsafe floor beforehand, he may be partially responsible for the accident. Our attorneys, confident in their argument and understanding of the labor law, decided to file an appeal on the motion.

Crafting the perfect appeal can be difficult – it requires a strong knowledge of previous rulings and an ability to interpret those rulings effectively in front of the Appellate Division judge.

In their appeal, our attorneys used recent decisions to demonstrate that defendants in Labor Law 240(1) cases are not absolved of liability even when dangerous conditions (like a rotted floor) are technically avoidable. The liability imposed on them is absolute – legally, a plaintiff cannot be considered even partially responsible if the defendants had clearly failed to provide safety equipment.

Confident that their argument would hold up in front of the Appellate Division, our attorneys prepared for court. However, before the date of the argument, the defense reached out to settle the case instead, opting to resolve the matter without trial.

Settlement and Recovery

Our client suffered serious, lasting impacts from his injuries, which still require ongoing medical care from various specialists. As a result of his (likely permanent) spinal cord injury, he deals with chronic low back pain along with weakness, burning, and numbness in his lower extremities. Walking, sitting, or standing for long periods of time is difficult, and the pain and associated limitations will likely require lifelong treatment.

Our client, however, was determined to keep fighting. Though the severity of his injuries disabled him from construction work, he started his own construction company after the accident, finding a new way to provide for his family. He also worked incredibly hard to regain his mobility and independence, and today he is able to ambulate on his own.

The settlement will further aid his recovery, allowing him to live comfortably, pay for his medical bills, and receive compensation for the pain and suffering he endured.

Settlement Amount

This case settled for $8,000,000.

Handling Attorneys

This case was handled by partners Jeffrey A. Block and S. Joseph Donahue.