Hernandez v. 151 Sullivan Tenant Corp.Hernandez v. 151 Sullivan Tenant Corp.
Plaintiff, an employee of defendant Jumbo Construction, the subcontractor on a certain roofing project, was on the edge of a roof when the hoist to which he had attached his safety rope toppled over and pulled him onto a sidewalk bridge, 50 feet below, causing multiple severe and debilitating injuries. This action ensued against the owner of the property, the general contractor and the subcontractor, alleging, in part, common-law negligence and violation of
On appeal, defendants argued that plaintiff, as an undocumented alien, was not entitled to recover past and future lost wages in a personal injury action, invoking the
The injuries plaintiff suffered (shattering of his left humerus, fracture of an arm, severely damaged spine, rib fractures, herniated discs, a collapsed lung and ruptured ligaments and biceps muscles in his left arm and left shoulder derangement) were catastrophic and permanent, leaving him completely disabled
The jury‘s allocation of 40% fault against Total Structural Concepts, the general contractor, which had both the authority and opportunity to supervise the performance of Jumbo‘s work but, instead, opted to participate minimally therein, is supported by the evidence. As the record shows, Total neglected to oversee the work directly and to have a safety program at the site. During the visits of Total‘s vice-president, Schiavo, to the job site, he observed the hoist being used to raise and lower materials to and from the roof. Yet despite Total‘s safety obligation and duty to direct and control the work, Schiavo never inspected the hoist or instructed Jumbo‘s employees on how to do their work or about the means and methods of construction. As the record shows, Schiavo was on the roof on the morning of the accident. Total had both a contractual duty to ensure the safety of workers, including Jumbo‘s, and a duty under general negligence principles to exercise reasonable care to prevent foreseeable harm (see Forelli v Pratt Inst., 181 AD2d 856 [1992]).
We have considered defendants’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Sullivan, Nardelli and McGuire, JJ.