Scaffolding Death of Construction Worker Case Reviewed By Illinois Supreme Court For Sole Proximate Cause
The Illinois Supreme Court is in the process of reviewing an Illinois wrongful death case involving a construction worker who fell to his death from a scaffold. The case of Ready v. United/Goedecke Services, Inc., No. 108910 had already been reviewed by the Illinois Supreme Court and remanded to the Appellate Court. However, Ready returned to the Illinois Supreme Court for review after the Illinois Appellate Court disregarded the higher court's mandate.
In Ready, the Illinois wrongful death claim was brought by the construction worker's widow against the owner of the plant where decedent was working, the general contractor for the construction job, and a scaffolding subcontractor. Prior to the 2003 Cook County trial both the plant owner and the general contractor settled with the decedent's widow regarding the Illinois construction site injury.
However, the scaffolding contractor elected to go to trial where a $14 million verdict was entered in favor of decedent's estate. The jury did find that the plaintiff-decedent contributed to his own fall, valuing his contributory-negligence for the construction site injury at 35%. Therefore, since the plaintiff-decedent was 35% responsible, the $14 million verdict was reduced by 35%, or $4.2 million. The verdict was further reduced by the value of the settlements already secured by plaintiff so that in the end the verdict was reduced by almost $8 million.
On the following morning, the mother woke up about 6:30 am and smelled what she thought was natural gas. Her daughter recognized the odor as the same she had detected the night before but the smell had grown much stronger. The mother called 911, but the gas explosion occurred immediately after that call was made. The mother and daughter were severely injured.
However, sometimes this is not the reality, in which case an 
A recent Cook County verdict illustrates such a situation. The case involved a 20 year-old construction worker who sustained a broken femur and a back injury after a fall from a scaffold while working as a construction laborer on a project at a public library in Mt. Prospect, Illinois. 
The painter had been working on a lift at a school in Hanover when the 
It was alleged in the plaintiffs' complaint that the building owners were negligent in violating several Illinois safety laws. In addition to failing to maintain the elevator safely or conduct basic inspections of the elevator, the lawsuit filed claimed that the building owner violated 
While the man was working for the IDOT the incident actually occurred in Indiana, just over the Illinois-Indian border. Because the injury took place in Indiana the defendant attorneys asked the 
However, a recent settlement in a 
The study showed that forklifts, or powered industrial vehicles, were involved in a significant number of deaths in the workplace. According to the study several different factors contributed to the cause of the Illinois 
The profits, losses and liabilities resulting from the project were to be shared 60-40 between the two companies, with Midwest getting the larger share. As part of this agreement, Midwest was responsible for providing the labor and covering the workers' compensation insurance. 
This situation applies when the control of the job's safety clearly rests in the hands of the builder or owner of the project. The relevant company can be held responsible for a construction accident when one of its workers is placed in such a dangerous situation that his/her injuries were foreseeable and predictable.
Michael Hadrys, an Adjustable Forms employee, was injured while working on a construction project in Illinois called the River East Project. And as is typical in the construction industry, his insurance was an owner controlled insurance program (OCIP) meaning that it was covered through the owner of the job and not his direct employer. The OCIP was being covered by Reliance Insurance Co., who have since folded, and that's when things get complicated.
The statute seeks to protect construction parties from having to defend against stale claims. Since its inception the statute has been a balancing act between the rights of the injured party and the rights of the party responsible for the construction. Illinois courts generally have limited the statute to apply to claims of construction or improvement to real property. However, where some courts differ is on claims brought as to duties of maintenance and inspection.
