The Plaintiff, a factory maintenance contractor, fell from a second floor opening at a local metropolitan factory where he was temporarily working resulting in a right below knee amputation. The Plaintiff was working near an opening approximately 25’ above the ground that should have been protected by guardrails to prevent people working near the opening from accidentally falling from the building. The local factory had two horizontal guardrails in place but failed to secure them in any manner. They were simply resting in place in the door mounted brackets held in by their weight alone. The fact the guardrails were not properly secured was hidden from the Plaintiff. The condition of the guardrails allowed them to be easily bumped or inadvertently knocked from their brackets which rendered the doorway dangerous.
The fall occurred while the Plaintiff was running two large hoses from the second floor opening to the ground below as part of the decommissioning of existing heavy machinery. As the Plaintiff lowered one hose through the opening, it bumped the lower horizontal (and unsecured) guardrail causing it to fall to the ground 25’ below. The contractor then also fell from the unsecured opening but managed to catch himself on the opening’s ledge, where he hung by his hands for nearly 90 seconds before losing his grip and crashing to the ground below. The fall caused significant lower right extremity fractures which after numerous surgeries, ultimately required amputation.
The case was fiercely defended on three primary fronts, all focused on contributory negligence. First, Plaintiff’s fault for failing to wear a fall harness as Defendant argued was required by its internal and contractor fall safety policies. Second, Plaintiff failing to inspect the guardrail system before working near the opening to ensure the rails were properly locked into place. Third, the Plaintiff’s chosen method for removing the hoses was dangerous as there were alternative, safer options not requiring him to be near the opening. Plaintiff heavily contested all three defenses and focused the case on the dangerous condition of the doorway that was both known, and created, by the Defendant factory.
The successful resolution of the case hinged on a meticulous study of the defendant factory’s voluminous policies and procedures, analysis of OSHA standards and significant deposition discovery of defendant’s management and additional day-to-day factory employees. The case was resolved at mediation after the close of discovery and after Plaintiff produced his six retained experts for deposition.
