The plaintiff was a journeyman ironworker performing steel connection work on
a warehouse being erected in Monmouth Junction, New Jersey. The plaintiff's
employer hired a crane operator, to provide cranes and a crane operator to lift
the steel to the location where the ironworkers were erecting the warehouse. On
the afternoon of the accident, the plaintiff was working with another
ironworker, connecting steel bar joists to the bay structure of the warehouse. A
steel bar joist was delivered by the crane operator in a sudden manner, without
warning, without the customary hand signals from the ironworkers, and at a high
rate of speed angled directly at the plaintiff, who was not tied off in any
manner. While attempting to deflect the joist, the plaintiff's work glove became
caught and he was pulled off the structure. There was no fall protection in
place for the ironworkers at the site, and the plaintiff fell 45 feet to the
ground below sustaining multiple comminuted spinal fractures.
At the time of his accident, the plaintiff was a member of a three man
connecting team that included his cousin, and a relative of his employer's
owner. The three man team was responsible for landing and connecting steel bar
joists that were delivered by the crane operator, with two of the ironworkers
connecting the joist and one applying an x-brace in the middle of the joist
connecting it to the other joists.
Plaintiff alleged that neither he nor his connecting partner ever signaled
for the crane operator to deliver the joist that pulled him off the steel. This
testimony was supported by plaintiff's connecting partner, and both of them
maintained that the crane operator had repeatedly failed to follow hand signals
on other occasions. While the crane operator maintained that he was given the
hand signals, and that the method of his delivery was appropriate, he had no
specific recollection of the angle and movement of the joist, and did confirm
that the plaintiff's glove got caught on the joist that he was delivering.
At the time of the accident, the general contractor and the subcontractor all
failed to provide proper fall protection in compliance with OSHA requirements.
No static lines or other means were provided to tie off a body harness-tether
while the ironworkers were up on the steel. Further, no safety nets were
installed. The sole means of fall protection in place for ironworkers at the
site was the use of manlifts, which were inadequate in number and not properly
maintained. Although the ironworkers were customarily brought up to the steel
structure by the use of manlifts, these devices were not left in place to allow
the ironworkers to work from an attached basket so as to permit them to tie off
with a body harness-tether device as fall protection. The manlifts were further
impeded by wet and uneven ground conditions which made it difficult to properly
locate the devices and caused them to get stuck in the mud. Due to the
inadequacy of the fall protection system in place, ironworkers were routinely
permitted to stand on the steel to make connections while not protected from
falls in any manner. In fact, they were actually encouraged to wear full body
harnesses, without tether straps and without a means of tying off, to give the
appearance that they had fall protection, in the event OSHA inspectors came to
the construction site.
The superintendent and project manager for the general contractor had a
trailer office approximately 300 yards from the site of plaintiff's fall. They
allegedly walked the site on a regular basis, yet failed to monitor the fall
protection and safety at the job site, instead deferring to plaintiff's
employer.
After plaintiff sustained his injury and was brought by ambulance to Robert
Wood Johnson University Hospital in New Brunswick, an alcohol test specimen was
collected and revealed a post-accident blood serum alcohol concentration of
.054%. This is the equivalent of a blood alcohol concentration of approximately
.045%. It was determined that plaintiff had consumed beer over lunch, and his
fall took place approximately two hours after lunch. Blood alcohol experts were
retained by both the plaintiff and defendants, who each concluded that
plaintiff's blood alcohol concentration at the time of the fall was between .05
and .07%, and that the beer consumption would have been approximately 48 ounces
during the lunch period. While the experts agreed that in controlled laboratory
settings, impairment can begin at .04%, plaintiff's expert relied on the
descending blood alcohol concentration to conclude that this was a late stage
absorption. Further, it was undisputed that the plaintiff was an experienced and
accomplished ironworker and had demonstrated no physical impairments prior to
the accident while in the process of landing and connecting many other bar
joists. He demonstrated no unusual behavior indicative of impairment, and
plaintiff's expert viewed his impairment as subtle and disagreed with a
conclusion that the risk of an accident was substantially increased at .05%
BAC.
Plaintiff had landed on his back in deep mud. He remained conscious, in
severe lower back pain and was having trouble breathing. Emergency CT scans and
x-rays revealed several comminuted fractures in the thoracic and lumbar spine.
Surgery was not performed until the following day at which time a straight
incision was made in his back from T6 in the thoracic spine through L4 in the
lumbar spine which was hooked off over the right ilium for bone harvesting.
Plaintiff sustained a burst fracture at the L1 lumbar vertebra with spinal canal
compromise and an additional anterior compression wedge fracture at T10 in the
thoracic spine. A thoracolumbar reduction of fractures with pedicle screws and
hook instrumentation was made from T9 to L2, together with an arthrodesis from
T11 to L2 using rods. The spinal canal was compromised because of retropulsion
of bone into the canal, and there were numerous fractures of the transverse
processes. The surgical procedure took 10 hours and the plaintiff lost four
liters of blood limiting the surgery. While at Robert Wood Johnson, for the next
ten days, he contracted a facial infection with painful cold sores and suffered
a mild left lower lobe pneumonia. From Robert Wood Johnson, he was taken
directly to Kessler Institute for Rehabilitation in West Orange, where he
remained for several weeks. Over the course of the next year, the plaintiff
progressed from a wheelchair to a rolling walker, to the use of a cane, and was
required to wear a full molded back brace to restrict movement in the spine.
Ultimately, lumbar range of motion plateaued at 50% and lifting restrictions at
25 lbs.
Having determined that he could no longer work as an ironworker, or in any
other physically active job, plaintiff returned to college, and obtained a BA as
an English major and secured a full time position as an English teacher.
Attorneys Amos Gern and John Ratkowitz were able to resolve the case after
expert depositions.
