My wife Debra and I were treated in an expedient and personal manner. Mr. Grossman and his staff took care of everything and kept me aware of the status of my case every step of the way.
-
P. Hogan
Automobile Accident Case
Fatal Dallas Construction Accidents
Has Your Family Suffered the Loss of a Loved One in a Dallas Construction Fatality? Our Attorneys Will Fight For You!
If you have lost someone you love in a construction accident, you know how devastating the experience can be. To make things worse, in many cases, victims’ family members are left in the dark – they do not know what happened or how they can seek justice.
Dallas construction fatality attorney Michael Grossman can help. Construction fatalities are unfortunately common in the state of Texas, and in every single construction fatality case that Grossman Law Offices has litigated, someone at the site committed clear safety violations. Construction fatalities are not often the result of chance. They almost always result from a consistent pattern of negligence and disregard for the safety of the workers on the site. The overwhelming majority of the construction fatality cases that we have seen are completely preventable. Our firm is dedicated to helping you bring the parties responsible for these accidents to justice. Construction site employers have a responsibility to make sure that their workers are safe, and when employers neglect this responsibility, we try to ensure that they are held accountable for their negligence. Losing someone you love in an accident is a terrible experience, but our attorneys are here to help you bring those responsible to justice.
Different Types of Construction Fatality Lawsuits
Workers’ Compensation Insurance and How It Affects Your Claim
How your lawsuit is handled depends largely on whether or not your loved one’s employer was protected by workers’ compensation insurance at the time of the accident. Workers’ compensation insurance is a multifaceted legal construct that is not just a standard insurance policy. Rather, it is the culmination of a tort reform measure that is pro-business and designed to limit the amount of money that a deceased worker’s family may receive. Additionally, workers’ compensation insurance also prevents the victim or the victim’s family from filing a lawsuit in almost all cases (the exception to this rule will be discussed shortly). Many people are told by attorneys that they simply have no case because of these restrictive laws. However, our attorneys know of several potential loopholes that can help the families of construction accident victims pursue a wrongful death claim in spite of the restrictions in place. Our firm recently settled a case where the family was told by half a dozen different attorneys that they had no case. The other firms they spoke to told them that they should just give up. The family contacted our attorneys for a second opinion and 8 months later we put a sizable check into our clients’ hands. In short, there are often ways to work around the impositions of Texas workers’ comp coverage wrongful death limitations.
Nonsubscriber Work Injury Claims
A nonsubscriber lawsuit is a lawsuit filed against an employer who does not subscribe to workers’ compensation insurance. These employers are not afforded the protection that workers’ compensation insurance provides to subscribers, so a construction fatality lawsuit filed against them is very similar to a typical wrongful death case. A non-subscriber has one legal defense against this type of lawsuit: proving that your loved one’s accident was entirely due to errors committed by your loved one. This means that nonsubscribers and their defense lawyers typically leave victims and their families out to dry in an effort to avoid liability. Since this is their only defense, they are typically very aggressive in building a case against your loved one, and will often attack the victim’s character and attempt to portray him or her as a careless, negligent worker.
Our attorneys can prevent these tactics from damaging your case and keep these slanders from damaging your family member’s name. We have years of experience dealing with non-subscribers and their underhanded defense techniques, and we know how to show juries the sort of dangerous working environment in which construction workers typically operate. We can prove that your family member was a careful, diligent worker who was the victim of another party’s negligence.
Workers’ Comp Wrongful Death Claims
If your family member’s employer subscribes to workers’ compensation insurance, our attorneys must use a different tactic with your claim. As mentioned previously, workers’ compensation insurance often prevents lawsuits filed against the subscriber. Ordinary negligence is not grounds for a lawsuit if the employer is protected by workers’ compensation insurance. However, if our attorneys can convince a jury that your loved one’s employer was grossly negligent, then you can receive the compensation you deserve.
Proving gross negligence is more complicated than proving negligence. Negligence is an accidental mistake or a temporary lapse in judgment. For example, if a construction worker using a nail gun accidentally slips and hits another worker with a stray nail, that worker is guilty of negligence. In most personal injury cases, negligence is grounds for compensation, but workers’ compensation insurance protects employers from cases brought on the basis of negligence. This means that, even if your family member’s employer was guilty of ordinary negligence, this is not grounds to sue.
However, gross negligence is different. Gross negligence is a wanton or reckless disregard for another person’s safety or health. Similar to the above example, consider a worker who accidentally injures another worker with a nail gun. However, in this case, let us say that the worker has already injured four other workers in the past while using a nail gun and is generally regarded as careless with the nail gun. In this case, the worker would likely be guilty of gross negligence if he injured another worker. The difference is that the worker using the nail gun knew that an injury was likely to occur and yet he used the nail gun anyway.
As another example, consider an explosion at an oil rig. If the explosion is a random accident that no one predicted, everyone at the oil rig was following standard safety procedures, and the rig was operating as safely as possible, then gross negligence would probably not apply. However, if a number of workers and other officials had warned the rig’s owners about potential dangers and unsafe operating procedures and these warnings were ignored, then gross negligence would probably apply since the rig’s owners knew an accident was likely to occur, given the way the rig was operated.
Proving gross negligence requires a higher standard of proof than standard negligence. Your family member’s employer can even admit to being negligent, so long as gross negligence does not apply. But our attorneys know how to conduct the thorough investigation necessary to prove that an employer was grossly negligent. These cases typically involve testimony from expert witnesses and other workers at the scene. Our legal professionals can help you identify potential witnesses and locate experts that can testify on your loved one’s behalf as to how the construction site should have been operated. We also know how to gather records of previous jobsite accidents and safety violations committed by the defendant. In other words, we will do everything we can to gather the evidence necessary to prove that your loved one’s employer was grossly negligence and should be held accountable.
Third Party Lawsuits
Third party lawsuits are claims filed against anyone other than your loved one’s employer who was liable for your loved one’s accident. These claims can be filed in addition to (or in the absence of) any claims filed against the employer. There are many different potential third parties who can be held liable for an accident, including property owners, general contractors, equipment manufacturers, equipment leasing companies, or virtually any other entity who played a role in the accident.
Claims filed against property owners are brought if the property owner failed to take adequate safety measures to ensure that the people working on their property were safe. This form of negligence can result in a premises liability claim against the property owner. On the other hand, if the property owner was intimately involved in overseeing the project, they could be held vicariously liable for any accident that occurred during the project. Our attorneys can help you investigate the details of an accident and determine whether or not property owners can be held liable.
General contractors can be held liable for an accident under a number of different circumstances. If the general contractor had an agreement with the property owner in which the contractor assumed the responsibility of ensuring that workers were safe, then the general contractor can be held liable for accidents that occur on the job site. On the other hand, if a general contractor was using your family member as a borrowed servant, an employer-employee relationship may be established. This relationship supersedes the general contractor relationship, allowing you to file a wrongful death claim against the general contractor as if he or she were your loved one’s employer.
If defective equipment caused the accident, you can pursue a claim against the equipment’s manufacturer or the equipment’s leasing company. If the malfunction was caused by a faulty design or a mistake in the manufacturing process, then the manufacturer is likely liable. If the accident was caused by a lack of maintenance or poor repair work, then the entity responsible for keeping the machine working properly would be liable. In most cases, this is the company that leases the equipment.
Ultimately, any party can potentially cause an accident at a job site, and that party can be held liable through many different forms of liability. Some of these forms rest on obscure legal theories, but our Dallas construction fatality attorneys are intimately familiar with work injury law, and we can use even complex forms of liability to ensure that every party responsible for your loved one’s death is held accountable.
How Grossman Law Offices Can Help You
As you can probably imagine, these cases are highly technical and require extreme familiarity and experience with construction accident cases. Non-attorneys (or even attorneys who do not have construction accident experience) have virtually no chance of success in these cases. There are many different variations on each case, and each of them must be handled using unique legal strategies.
One of the most important elements in these cases, however, is the preservation of evidence. Construction fatalities are investigated by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), but do not make the mistake of assuming that an OSHA investigation will uncover the truth and bring justice for your loved one’s death. OSHA investigations are only concerned with OSHA violations, which often have nothing to do with establishing liability for a victim’s death. Furthermore, OSHA investigations often take many months. Construction sites do not sit still for long, and by time an OSHA investigation concludes, much of the evidence relating to your loved one’s death is long gone.
Let our legal professionals launch an investigation as soon as possible. We can lock down the scene of the accident and acquire any machinery or equipment involved in the accident so that we can conduct a thorough investigation of your loved one’s death and determine exactly what happened. We leave no stone unturned in our investigations, so that you can have a strong case that holds every liable party accountable for their negligence.
Our attorneys have twenty years of experience investigating and resolving construction fatality cases, and we know how these lawsuits work. We have litigated hundreds of high-profile cases against numerous large construction companies, manufacturers, insurance carriers, and defense attorneys. These organizations know how successful we have been, and they often offer our clients sizable settlements once they learn that we are on the case, simply because they do not want to face our attorneys in court. In other words, we can help you and your family bring this case to a close quickly and as painlessly as possible so that you can get on with your lives. We know how traumatic these accidents can be to the victim’s family members, and we want to do everything we can to help. So if you have lost someone you love in a construction accident, do not let those responsible go unpunished. Contact Dallas construction fatality lawyer Michael Grossman from Grossman Law Offices today for a free consultation. Let us help you get the compensation you need and the justice your loved one deserves.
Who do I file a claim or lawsuit against?
Who was responsible for the wrongful death?
A young worker was negligently trained to operate a piece of machinery. During a routine cleaning procedure, he suffered a serious hand injury consisting of numerous deep lacerations across his palm. The defendants claimed that he was a contract laborer and therefore owed no legal duty. Through litigation, our attorneys showed evidence to establish an employer-employee relationship thereby creating a non-subscriber work injury cause of action.
$1,010,000.00
$333,300.00
$50,000.00
A loading dock worker suffered serious including numerous facial fractures and minor brain trauma when an 18-wheeler back into him, crushing him against the loading dock. The plaintiff's employer was a subscriber to Texas Workers' Compensation coverage, thus a claim was rightly filed against the third party trucking company whom the truck driver operating the reversing 18-wheeler worked for.
The plaintiffs asserted the position that the trucking company in question was liable on the basis of respondeat superior and negligent retention. The defendants argued that the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his injuries by virtue of the plaintiff putting himself in harms way. They maintained that the plaintiff simply walked behind the reversing tractor trailer as it pushed back toward the loading dock.
It was later determined through deposition testimony that the truck driver had indeed instructed the plaintiff to stand behind the trailer in order to determine the vehicle's proximity to the dock. Once this fact came to light, the defendants agreed to mediate whereby the case was satisfactorily settled.
$300,000.00
$120,000.00
$9,807.00
Recovered for worker who injured their shoulder while lifting a heavy object.
$162,500.00
$81,250.00
$3,784.00
Major freight train company sued as the result of an incident which claimed the life of an employee. Our attorneys settled the case outside of court for a confidential amount.
Confidential
Confidential
Confidential
Our attorneys were hired by a delivery driver who sustained a serious shoulder injury when a worker for a third party negligently operated a fork lift. The accident occurred as the plaintiff delivered a load of hay bails to a commercial farm.
An employee of said facility attempted to unload the trailer with a forklift. In doing so, he pushed several bales of hay off of the flatbed, over the side opposite the forklift. Consequently, several of the 400 lb (est.) bales of hay struck the plaintiff who was working to disconnect tie downs on the opposite side of the trailer. This resulted in serious injury to the plaintiff's shoulder.
The defendants took an aggressive stance and denied the claim, asserting that the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his own injuries by virtue of the fact that he was standing in a known dangerous area. Suit was filed soon thereafter. Our attorneys argued that the plaintiff's ordinary work duties, and indeed the normal protocol for all flatbed delivery drivers, consists of letting loose the materials to be unloaded. We maintained that the true cause of the plaintiff's injuries was that the forklift operator rushed into unloading the trailer.
Furthermore, the manner in which he unloaded the trailer was itself a contributing element of the defendant's negligence. The forks that were incorporated into the forklift in question were not compatible with stabbing hay bails; they were ordinary forks that were designed to be positioned below a heavy object that was to be lifted. The case was successfully resolved in mediation.
$226,000.00
$84,000.00
$5,500.00
(policy limits) Recovery of a disputed life insurance policy for the family of a contractor who died on the job.
$150,000.00
$50,000.00
$341.00
(policy limits) A father of two was killed on the job when he fell from a personnel platform atop an elevated piece of machinery. The defendant was initially afforded protection from a liability suit by virtue of their workers' comp policy. Upon thorough investigation, it became evident that gross negligence was at the root of the accident, and suit was filed accordingly. A successful outcome was obtained through litigation.
$550,000.00
$220,000.00
$40,000.00
A loading dock employee suffered a fractured and damage to internal organs as the result of a crushing injury sustained when an 18-wheeler backed into him and crushed him between the trailer and loading dock.
$700,000.00
$175,000.00
$1,084.00
Recovery for injured worker who suffered a closed head injury in a scaffolding accident.
$125,000.00
$30,000.00
$2,135.00
The mother of a young man hired our firm to investigate the death of her son following a fatal car accident. The incident occurred as one of the two vehicles involved ran a red light and drive into the path of the other. The defendant was driving a work vehicle for a construction company. The defendant survived the accident and stated to police that the decedent caused the accident. The police could not conclusively determine who was at fault, yet the police report strongly implied that the decedent was likely at fault based on the statement provided by the defendant.
The plaintiff's mother was not convinced. Through a thorough investigation, we ultimately determined that the stoplight that the defendant claimed that our client ran, in fact, worked on a timer whereby the light was always green between certain hours unless a vehicle traveling on the intersecting road had been stopped at the right light for more than 30 seconds. Based on an analysis of the vehicles and tire markings, it was conclusively determined that both vehicles were traveling at the speed limit, which clearly indicates that the defendant driver had not accelerated from stop, rather, he was traveling at the speed limit, which would not have triggered a green light for the defendant.
The logical implications of this information is that the light could not have been red for the plaintiff, and it certainly would have been red for the defendant. As a consequence of this information, the case was resolved through litigation.
$335,000.00
$134,000.00
$63,000.00