John Doe v. Simco Heavy Equip and others
- Resolution Date:
- September 1994
- Practice Areas:
- Construction Injuries
- Synopsis:
- John Doe, a 34-year-old laborer was injured while working for Munkdale Brothers. Munkdale, a subcontractor, was doing landscaping, drainage and sanitary work on the construction site of a Home Depot store in Union City, California. Defendant Hodgson Construction was the general contractor on the project. Munkdale was accustomed to installing small PVC pipes, but the sewer installation required large concrete pipes. Munkdale rented a heavy, articulated excavating machine, from defendants Simco Heavy Equipment Rentals and they provided a trained operating engineer, Edward Holley. The defendant General Contractor took a delivery of the large concrete sewer pipes and stockpiled them at some distance from the installation area. John Doe was assisting defendant Holley in transporting the pipes to the trench with the loader, one pipe at a time. Holley operated the loader while plaintiff steadied the pipes; Holley instructed plaintiff to stand near the loader's left front tire to steady the pipe, which was suspended by a chain. The tire itself was almost five feet high. The pipe rocked and rotated during transport, and John Doe had to steady it to keep it from contacting the tires. John Doe had to walk in front of the loader with his back to the loader and its operator. Holley lost sight of John for a moment and he was crushed under the left front tire. John Doe sustained severe and numerous injuries to his lower extremities. On his right side, John sustained crushing fractures of the bones in his foot and leg. John's right and left hip bones were fractured, and his left hip was displaced six inches. Because John's left sciatic nerve was crushed, he became partially paralyzed in his left leg. John Doe also sustained digestive tract injuries. The firm contended that defendant General Contractor was responsible for worker safety on the project; that its head of safety had knowledge of the unsafe use of the loader but failed to stop the unsafe practice. The firm also contended that the excavating machine was defective in design, since the placement of the controls and glass restricted the operator's view too much to use the articulating equipment safely on a construction site. The matter settled before trial.
- Attorneys:
-
Kevin Lancaster
William Veen - Resolution:
- $4.1 Million