Published on:

Injured New York Construction Worker Was Allowed to Pursue a Safety Consultant Because that Consultant Was an ‘Agent’ Under New York Law

If you’ve been hurt while working at a construction job, you may be entitled to substantial compensation. The group of people or entities whom you can properly sue for that compensation may depend on the specific facts of your case. While the law allows you to seek compensation from the owner of the property and the general contractor on the job, the law may also allow you to pursue others if you can prove that the other person or entity legally qualified as an “agent” of the owner or the contractor. Talk to a knowledgeable New York construction accident attorney to learn more about your rights and your options.

An example of this issue of an “agent” was the New York City case of F.S. F.S.’ construction injury unfortunately occurred as far too many do; he fell from a scaffold. F.S. was working on a job at what was to be a mixed-use hotel and condo building. The building was owned by multiple companies. When you are injured at your construction job, especially if it is a larger job, the chances are high that there are numerous entities involved. Giving yourself the best chance of getting a full and fair recovery, then, means identifying all of the entities that are potentially liable to you and including them in your lawsuit. It also means identifying the ones that are not liable under the law and making sure that you don’t include them in your legal action.

At F.S.’ worksite, one firm served as the construction manager, and that company hired a different entity to serve as the safety consultant on the project. The safety consultant was one of the entities that the worker named in his Scaffold Law action. The safety consultant tried to get the court to dismiss it from the case, but it was not successful. The law allows injured construction workers to go after three groups of people under the Labor Law. One is the owners of the site. Another is the general contractor. A third is any entity that is an “agent” of either of the first two.

To be an agent in this context, the law requires that an entity has the “authority to supervise and control” the work that led to the worker’s injury. According to F.S.’ allegations, the safety consultant had a safety inspector on site, and that inspector had the authority to shut down work if he saw an immediate danger as a result of unsafe practices. If F.S. was able to prove that, that meant that the safety consultant potentially had the sort of power required by the law to make it an agent. That meant that the safety consultant was possibly liable for the injuries that F.S. suffered.

For the useful advice and skilled representation you need, reach out to the knowledgeable Queens scaffolding accident attorneys at Newman, Anzalone & Newman. Our team has been aiding people injured at construction sites in getting fair compensation for the harm they suffered for many years. To put our experience to work for you, schedule a free consultation with one of our qualified attorneys. Contact us toll-free at 877-754-3099 or through our website.

More Blog Posts:

New York’s Construction Injury Laws May Help You Even if You are Not a Construction Worker, New York Personal Injury Lawyers Blog, July 6, 2018

How Small Distinctions Can Make Big (and Beneficial) Differences in Your New York Construction Injury Case, New York Personal Injury Lawyers Blog, June 18, 2018

Contact Information