October 14, 2009

Illinois Construction Accident General Contractor Held Responsible For Injury To Employee Of Sub-Contractor

In a case before the Seventh Circuit United States Court of Appeals in Chicago, it was held that a general contractor can be held liable for injuries to an employee of a sub-contractor where it is shown that the general contractor has assumed a degree of the responsibility for his safety with which sub-contractors do their work. Jose Aguirre v. Turner Construction Company, et al., No. 08-3999.

Hard%20Hat%203.jpgThe Illinois construction site accident occurred when the worker fell from a scaffold while working on the renovation of Soldier Field in Chicago. The Appellate Court reversed the decision for summary judgment in favor of the defendant. The lower court had ruled that the defendant did not owe any duty to the plaintiff because he was an employee of the subcontractor and that any negligence by the defendant was not relevant because it did not have exclusive control of the scaffold from which plaintiff fell.

Continue reading "Illinois Construction Accident General Contractor Held Responsible For Injury To Employee Of Sub-Contractor" »

April 9, 2009

Illinois’ Contribution Act Interpreted by Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals

An Illinois worker was crushed by a tractor-trailer at a loading dock while working for his employer. He collected Illinois workers’ compensation benefits from his employer, Ensign, and then he and his wife sued three companies in strict tort liability. Baltzell v. R&R Trucking Co., 554 F.3d 1124 (7th Cir. 2009).

Hard%20Hat%20yellow%202.jpgThe three defendants were R&R Trucking Company, owner of the tractor-trailer; Freightliner Corp., the tractor manufacturer, and Lufkin Industries, which was the trailer manufacturer. All of the defendants in the Illinois liability case filed third party contribution claims against the employer, Ensign, which means that Ensign could be held liable for the injury, too.

Ensign became involved because the other defendants were acting on the theory of joint and several liability, which states that a defendant who has paid more than its share of damages may seek contribution from other parties. The idea behind joint and several liability is that those parties who are most at fault should pay their share, regardless of whether they had settled prior to the verdict, or if they were not named in the lawsuit.

After a Chicago federal district court jury trial, a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs was entered in the total sum of $13,980,120. The jury apportioned fault as follows: The plaintiff was not at fault; Freightliner was liable for 20% of the fault; Lufkin 10%; R&R 40%; and Ensign 30%. Under this verdict Ensign would be liable for $4,194,036.

However, Ensign attempted to reduce this amount by presenting evidence that its cap as set out according to a precedent set in Kotecki v. Cyclops Welding Corp. was $4,085,571.21 and that it had paid $873,953.31 already under the Illinois worker's compensation claim. Under Illinois law an employer’s contribution liability is capped to an amount not greater than the employer’s workers’ compensation liability. This value which is generally referred to as the ‘Kotecki cap’ represents the maximum amount that an employer has to pay in contribution.

Ensign moved to waive its workers’ compensation lien seeking dismissal of the third-party contribution claims. The district court denied Ensign’s motion. The district court then reduced the judgment by Ensign’s Kotecki cap of $4,085,471.21 which left $9,894,548 shared by the liability defendants according to their percentages at fault.

Continue reading "Illinois’ Contribution Act Interpreted by Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals" »

August 15, 2008

Chicago Metra Worker Denied FELA Recovery For Injuries Due to Lack Of Notice

Chicago area Metra worker Leonard Brzinski was denied recovery for injuries he suffered after falling into a sinkhole while working. Under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA), a train company employee can bring suit for injuries suffered on the job due to the employer's negligence.

Train%20Tracks%201.jpgBrzinski arrived at work in Orland Park, Illinois, to investigate an accident. He was walking along the service road that ran parallel to the railroad tracks for the purpose of taking photographs. While he was walking, the ground gave way and Mr. Brzinski stepped into an 18-inch sinkhole with his left foot and injured himself.

Brzinski filed suit against Metra seeking recovery for his injuries. The defendant, Metra, filed a motion for summary judgment stating (1) Leonard was not one of the employees statutorily allowed to recover under FELA and (2) that Metra had no actual or constructive notice of the sinkhole that caused the injury.

The trial court granted Metra's motion on the second argument- that Leonard failed to establish that Metra was or should have been on notice of the sinkhole defect. Therefore Metra was not responsible for Brzinski's injuries.

Brzinski appealed to the Illinois Appellate Court, who affirmed the decision of the trial court. The appeals court further stated that their decision was partly because of the consequences that would occur if they did side with the plaintiff despite his lack of proof. Namely, that every railroad would be liable for damages to an employee who was injured while working for them whether it was due to the railroad's negligence or not. The court did not feel this was the intention of the FELA statute.

Continue reading "Chicago Metra Worker Denied FELA Recovery For Injuries Due to Lack Of Notice" »

June 21, 2008

Age Discrimination Claim Upheld by U.S. Supreme Court In Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory

In a turn by the Supreme Court of the United States, the court handed down its ruling June 19, 2008 in favor of workers suing Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory for age discrimination. Notable in this decision is the fact that under Chief Justice John Roberts the Supreme Court repeatedly sided with business. Some critics even voiced concerns that the Roberts court went out of its way to side with big business, particularly in employment cases. This decision stands as a kind of reversal of that implied policy.

In Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, the National Government ordered its contractor, Knolls, to reduce its work force. As a result Knolls had its managers score their subordinates on "performance", "flexibility", and "critical skills". These scores, along with points for years of service, were to used to determine who would be laid off.

30 of the 31 employees let go were at least 40-years-old. Meacham was one of those 30. The lawsuit was initiated claiming disparate-impact under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. Disparate-impact is when an employment practice has a greater impact on one group over another. These "employment practices" can be anything from written tests, height and weight requirements, educational requirements, and subjective procedures, such as interviews. Under disparate-impact one doesn't have to prove that there was an intent to discriminate against a certain group, but just that the result is discrimination.

In this case the key issue was whether or not Knolls's basis for lay-offs was skewed according to age. The managers all scored these employees and thus used their own discretion to come up with their decisions.

Continue reading "Age Discrimination Claim Upheld by U.S. Supreme Court In Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory" »