Foreman

Describes motivation process for creativity with emphasis on intrinsic motivation by Corey K Katir

A general contractor was hired by a tenant of a building in Manhattan. The project was to install duct work into the intake air duct down in a shaft below street level in front of the building. A New York Injury Lawyer said the general contractor hired an air conditioning contractor to install the duct work at the job site. The air conditioning contractor subcontracted out its work to the metal sheet contractor.

The complainant was employed by the metal sheet contractor as a journeyman sheet metal worker, whose responsibilities were to hang and install duct work through the supervision of the complainantas foreman. On November 9, 2004, the complainant and his foreman went to the building in order to install a large piece of prefabricated duct work, known as gooseneck duct, below street level. According to the complainant, the gooseneck duct was the size of a car and was approximately six feet long, six feet wide, and five feet tall, and weighed between 110 and 125 pounds. The site where the gooseneck duct was to be placed was located below a series of about 40 metal grates that were in place on the ground. Each grate measure approximately two feet by four feet, and this grating covered an area of the ground measuring approximately 12 feet by 8 feet. The vault below the grating was approximately 15 feet deep.

In order to install the gooseneck duct below ground, the grating on the street level needed to be opened. The gooseneck duct was to be lowered through an opening in the grates in order to be installed below them.

Upon the complainantas arrival together with his foreman at the job site, they met with a representative from the general contractor, The general contractor representative who showed them where the gooseneck duct was going to be installed in the area below the grates and told them to wait for the representatives of the buildings to see how they would go about installing it. A mechanic and an engineer, who were employees of the building met with the complainant and the foreman. The two building employees then told the complainant and his foreman that the gooseneck duct was going to be lowered though the grating, and asked the foreman which grate was to be opened. The foreman told the building employees which grate to open and the complainant and his foreman went back to their truck to unload the gooseneck duct. As the complainant and his foreman were unloading the gooseneck duct off the truck, the mechanic removed the grate by unbolting four clips that held the grate down, lifting the grate up, and leaning it back against the building. However, the mechanic did not open the grate that the foreman had requested him to open. Instead, the mechanic opened the grate in the far corner, creating an unprotected two feet by four feet holes.

In order to maneuver the gooseneck duct to the grating area, the complainant and his foreman had to take the gooseneck duct around a rectangular billboard sign, which was attached to posts that were bolted to the ground over the grates. They transported the gooseneck duct to the area of the billboard on a dolly, and, when they arrived at the billboard area, they removed the gooseneck duct from the dolly, and attempted to drag the gooseneck duct behind the billboard on the left side in the space between the billboard and the building. While the gooseneck duct was on the sidewalk over the grates and the complainant was attempting to pull it into position, he let go of the gooseneck duct and fell backwards down approximately 15 feet into the hole created by the open grate.

Consequently, the complainant filed the action against the property manager and the general contractor, seeking to recover damages for the personal injuries sustained by him due to his slip and fall. The complaint alleges claims of common-law negligence, and violations of Labor Laws. The general contractor and the property manager both interposed their answers and the property manager asserted cross claims against the general contractor. The general contractor filed a third-party action against the metal sheet contractor. The metal sheet contractor answered the third-party complaint and the general contractor filed a second third party complaint against the air conditioning contractor. The air conditioning contractor interposed its answer and served cross claims against the metal sheet contractor. The general contractor sought to voluntarily discontinue its second third-party action against the air conditioning contractor, but none of the parties, other than the general contractor and the air conditioning contractor agreed to sign and execute the stipulation of discontinuance. The complainant filed his note of issue upon the completion of discovery.

The complainant argues that he is entitled to summary judgment in his favor on his Labor Law claim. The Labor Law imposes liability upon owners and contractors and their agents who fail to provide or erect safety devices necessary to give reasonable and adequate protection and safety for workers engaged in construction work who are exposed to elevation-related hazards. The legislative purpose behind the enactment is to protect workers by placing ultimate responsibility for safety practices at building construction jobs where such responsibility actually belongs, on the owner and general contractor, instead of on workers, who are scarcely in a position to protect them from an accident. A Long Island Personal Injury Lawyer said it is well settled that Labor Law is to be construed as liberally as may be for the accomplishment of the purpose for which it was framed.

In opposition to the complainantas motion for summary judgment and in support of its motion insofar as it seeks summary judgment dismissing the complainantas Labor Law claim, the property manager contends that the Labor Law is inapplicable to it because it was not the owner of the premises, a general contractor, or the agent of the owner or general contractor. However, a Brooklyn Personal Injury Lawyer said while the property manager was not the owner of the premises or a general contractor, a party can be deemed a statutory agent under the Labor Law and may be held vicariously liable as an agent of the property owner for injuries sustained pursuant to Labor Law where it had the ability to control the activity which brought about the injury.
.
When the work giving rise to the duty to conform to the requirements of Labor Law has been delegated to a third party, that third party then obtains the concomitant authority to supervise and control that work and becomes a statutory agent of the owner or general contractor. Indeed, it has been held that a property manager can be held liable under Labor Law as an agent of the owner.

The property manager argues that although it served as the property manager for the premises, it had no contractual relationship to the construction work which the complainant was performing. The property manager relies upon the fact that the general contractoras contract for the project was with the tenant. However, it is unnecessary for the property manager to have it actually contracted for the work in order for it to be held liable under Labor Law.

The property manager also relies upon their mechanicas deposition testimony that his supervisor, had told him to go up to the street level and open a piece of the grating for the tenant. Such deposition testimony, however, only supports the argument that the property manager was acting as an agent for the owner when its employee, the mechanic opened the grate for the complainant to install the gooseneck duct.

While the property manager argues that it did not supervise or control the complainantas work, their employees, the mechanic and the engineer, were present at the work site. The property manager contends that the removal of the grate by their mechanic did not constitute supervision or control over the complainantas work since it was the foreman who directed their mechanic to remove a particular grating. The foremanas direction as to which grate to open, however, did not negate any independent duties which the property manager may have had under the Labor Law, or prevent them from assuming those duties and thereby becoming vicariously liable as an agent of the property owner.

With respect to the supervision and control of the property manager over the complainantas work, the foreman testified, at his deposition, that a representative from the general contractor told them that they had to wait for somebody from the building to come and see how they were going to get the gooseneck duct into the building. The foreman further testified, at his deposition, that the people from the building then told them that they should bring the gooseneck duct down through the grating. Although according to the foreman, he told the people from the building which grate he wanted removed, the mechanic decided to open a different grate because he thought it would be the safest one, and neither the complainant nor the foreman was informed of it.

By opening the grating and thereby creating an open unprotected hole, the property manager, through its employees, exercised sufficient supervision and control over the complainantas work so as to render it liable under Labor Law as an agent of the owner. While vigorously disputing the liability of the property manager, which is acknowledged to be an incorrect accused and not the owner of the premises, the company has acknowledged that it served as the property manager for the subject premises. Thus, as the agent for the owner, they would be liable to the complainant under the Labor Law. Thus, the property manageras cross motion, insofar as it seeks dismissal of the complainantas Labor Law claim, must be denied.

In opposition to the complainantas motion for summary judgment in his favor, the property manager argues that the complainant is not entitled to summary judgment because there is a question of fact as to whether the complainant acts were the sole proximate cause of his injuries. Specifically, the property manager contends that the complainant was aware of the necessity for a grate to be removed so that the job could be carried out, but did not pay attention to the work of the employees. The property manager asserts that the complainantas failure to pay attention is a sufficient ground to deny his motion for summary judgment.

The property manager’s argument is rejected. Where a violation of Labor Law is a proximate cause of an accident, the worker’s conduct cannot be deemed solely to blame for it. The law states that contributory negligence will not exonerate an accused who has violated the statute and proximately caused a complainantas injury.

The general contractor and the metal sheet contractor, in opposition to the complainantas motion, argue that Labor Law is inapplicable to the case because the complainant was not involved in any work related to an elevation differential, but was, instead, merely moving the gooseneck duct from one location on the ground to another and not attempting to lower it. The argument is rejected. Although the complainant was at ground level, the hole into which he fell was 15 feet deep, and, thus, there was an elevation differential. The purpose of the complainantas actions, moreover, was to move the duct from ground level to the lower level through an opening in the grate pursuant to instruction. Traversing the ground where there was a 15 foot deep hole constituted an elevation-related risk covered by Labor Law.

The general contractor further argues that an opening created by the removal of a grate is akin to an opening created by the removal of a manhole cover. The Appellate Division in so holding, specifically noted that while Labor Law is applicable to work performed at heights or where the work itself involves risks related to differentials in elevation, the work in which the injured the complainant was involved in that case was wholly unrelated to an elevation-related hazard, the manhole in which he fell. Thus, the complainantas injury was not a direct consequence of the performance of his work.

Doing our job sometimes exposes us to danger. If you are harmed or injured while at work, you can seek the services of Brooklyn Slip and Fall Attorneys together with Brooklyn Accident Lawyers. If you are unable to work and earn a living due to injuries at work, you may consult a Brooklyn Workers Compensation Lawyer from Stephen Bilkis and Associates.

A married woman owned a property with a two-car garage. She decided to renovate the two-car garage by making it over into a guesthouse with a fireplace. She hired a general contractor to secure the necessary permits and licenses needed for the project; to hire and to supervise sub-contractors for each and every phase of the work; and to purchase insurance to shield the owner from suits in damages for any accidents that may occur during the renovation at the worksite.

The general contractor hired a company that constructs and installs drywall. It also hired a rock supplier to provide and install sheet rock as flooring. A man was hired by the rock supplier to deliver 16-foot sheet rock. A New York Injury Lawyer said he drove the truck on which the sheet rock was delivered. He also operated the boom that lifted the sheet rock from the truck bed to the forklift. A foreman from the general contractor told him to just bring the sheet rock into the garage and rest them on the long wall. The man and his helper took one sheet rock and carried it between the two of them. They entered the garage. When they got to the room where they were supposed to pile the sheet rock, the manas right foot slipped into a hole on the cement floor of the worksite that measured about sixteen inches in diameter. There was a pipe that protruded from the hole and the man tripped on this and fell. The man could not see where he was going as he and his helper carried the sheet rock in between them. His slip and fall made him land on the sheet rock which fell and broke.

The man sustained serious personal injury and sued the owner of the premises (premises liability), her husband, the general contractor, the drywall installer, and the rock supplier for common law negligence and for negligence under the labor code to compensate him for the damages he sustained as a result of his personal injury.

All the defendants moved for summary judgment asking for the dismissal of the complaint of the sheet rock delivery man. The only question before the Court is whether or not the defendants are entitled to a summary judgment of dismissal.

The owner of the premises submitted proof that she personally and solely owned the premises. She hired a general contractor to oversee in her behalf the construction and renovation. A Bronx Personal Injury Lawyer said that she often visited the premises but did not exercise any supervision of the construction work. She did not give instructions as to the performance of the construction work. She merely visited to see how the work was progressing.

The husband of the owner of the premises submitted proof that the premises are not conjugally or jointly owned by him and his wife; he submitted proof that only his wife owned the premises. He also submitted proof that he has not visited the premises and has not in any way supervised the work at the construction site.

The dry wall company submitted proof that on the day of the accident, it was not yet working at the worksite. The phase of the work that involved the installation of drywall had not yet begun and so it did not have any employees or equipment at the worksite. It had not yet worked at the worksite.

The rock supplier also disclaimed any responsibility for the slip and fall accident of the delivery man. Although the sheet rock was delivered at the worksite, the rock supplier had yet to begin work at the construction site. It had not yet done any work that could have created or caused the slipping and tripping hazard claimed by the deliveryman.

The general contractor denies any liability by stating that its job was limited to hiring sub-contractor to do the different phases of the construction work. A Brooklyn Personal Injury Lawyer said it hired architects, engineers and interior designers; it secured all the necessary licenses and permits for the construction work. Also it denies that it can be held liable for negligence under the Labor Code as it is not the employer of the deliveryman.
The only question before the Court is whether or not the complaint should be dismissed.

The Court ruled in favor of dismissal of the causes of action against the owner or the premises who never at any time exercised supervision or control of the construction project. The cause of action against the husband of the owner of the premises is also entitled to a dismissal of the cause of action against him as he is not the owner and has no relationship of supervision or control over the construction project.

The Court opined that liability for causes of action based on common law negligence and for violations of the Labor Code is limited to those who exercised control or supervision over the deliveryman; and to those who had actual or constructive notice of the existence of an unsafe condition that has caused the accident.

Clearly, none of the people and companies sued for damages under common law or the labor code exercised supervision or control over the deliveryman at the time that he delivered the sheet rock. There is no preliminary proof adduced in any of the causes of action that any of the parties here had actual or constructive notice that a dangerous condition existed that caused the deliveryman to slip and fall.

The complaint was dismissed.

Are you an employee who got injured at a worksite? Did you suffer damages as a result of a construction accident? Are you wondering if you can sue? Are you wondering whom to sue? Call the New York City Workers Compensation lawyers at Stephen Bilkis and Associates. They can give you advice on the most viable cause of action to bring. Their New York Workers Compensation attorneys will spare you the nightmare and expense of engaging in costly litigation that will end up in dismissal. You will also need to have some idea of the amount of damages you are likely to obtain. The NYC Slip and Fall Lawyers at Stephen Bilkis and Associates can sit down with you and work out the actual and moral damages you can claim. Call Stephen Bilkis and Associates at any of their offices in the New York area. The NY Slip and fall attorneys there are willing to assist and to represent you.

On December 7, 2006, a bricklayer was working on a scaffold more than 20 feet off of the ground. A New York Injury Lawyer said it was late in the day and the bricklayer maintains that he needed to use the bathroom. He informed his foreman and requested permission to lower the scaffold. He had lowered the scaffold on previous occasions so that he could use the bathroom and the foreman had not had an issue with it. However, the complainant advised that on this particular date, when he asked permission to lower the scaffold, the foreman told him that it was too late in the day and that it would put them behind on the job. He told the bricklayer to use the materials basket and have the helper lower him down in it.

The materials basket is a canvas basket that is used to raise and lower tools when they are needed. The helper told the foreman that it would not be a good idea, but the foreman ignored him. The bricklayer got into the canvas basket and the helper began to lower him to the ground. A Nassau County Personal Injury Lawyer said he was lowered about one half of a building story before the ropes gave way and the basket fell two stories to the ground below. The bricklayer was wearing a safety harness that was attached to the scaffolding, but it did not stop his fall. He sustained significant injury in the fall and filed a lawsuit against the construction company and the foreman.

This lawsuit is based on the fact that the foreman used negligence in insisting that the bricklayer use the materials basket to get to the ground to go to the bathroom rather than lowering the scaffold. This is a clearly dangerous practice and one that a reasonable man would consider hazardous. The construction company foreman disagreed.

The foreman denies ever telling the bricklayer that he should use the materials basket to lower himself. He maintains that the bricklayer took it upon himself to take that action and his subsequent injury is his own fault and not the fault of the foreman who did not give him permission for such a fool hardy stunt.

The bricklayeras wife also filed suit. Her suit alleges that she deserves compensation from the construction company because of loss of consortium. Basically, she is claiming that because her husband is injured, they are not able to continue on as man and wife. She believes that she should be compensated for that lack of consortium. A Long Island Personal Injury Lawyer said he and her husband filed a motion requesting a summary judgment of liability against the construction company because the labor laws of New York state that anyone working at an elevated height who is injured due to negligence of the company or building owner because his safety harness did not prevent his fall. He was not in violation of any orders made by his supervisor so the law says that he is entitled to summary judgment.

The owner of the construction company contends that the foremanas request for a summary judgment should be denied because the foreman testified that he did not refuse to lower the scaffold and that he knew nothing of the bricklayeras intentions to ride the materials basket down to the ground. They maintain that his conduct caused the accident and that he should be considered a arecalcitrant workera as described in the code section. A recalcitrant worker is one that is aware of the necessity for using the safety harness and lines, but who refuses to use them. The company states that this is reason for dismissal of the summary judgment request made by the bricklayer.

The Supreme Court reviewed the facts of the case and determined that the foremanas testimony in reference to the fact that the bricklayer was wearing his harness and safety line at the time of the accident undermines the contention by the company that he is a recalcitrant worker. The request for summary judgment in favor of the bricklayer was approved. The motions from the company were dismissed. The motion from the wife for compensation from lack of marital consortium is also dismissed for lack of cause.

At Stephen Bilkis & Associates, there are Queens Personal Injury Lawyers in convenient offices throughout New York and Metropolitan area. Suffering from a personal injury because of the negligence of others is difficult. Whether you have hurt in a slip and fall, a construction accident or car accident, call Stephen Bilkis and Associates for a free consultation.

Maryland has announced that Lukas Foreman, who redshirted during the 2011 season, has been suspended from the football team for one year because of a violation of the schoolas Student-Athlete Code of Conduct.Read full article >>

Maryland has announced that Lukas Foreman, who redshirted during the 2011 season, has been suspended from the football team for one year because of a violation of the schoolas Student-Athlete Code of Conduct.Read full article >>

Maryland has announced that Lukas Foreman, who redshirted during the 2011 season, has been suspended from the football team for one year because of a violation of the schoolas Student-Athlete Code of Conduct.Read full article >>

A World on Fire Britain’s Crucial Role in the American Civil War
Written by Amanda Foreman

10 BEST BOOKS • THE NEW YORK TIMES BOOK REVIEW • 2011
 
NAMED ONE OF THE BEST BOOKS OF THE YEAR BY
The Washington Post • The New Yorker • Chicago Tribune • The Economist • Nancy Pearl, NPR • Bloomberg.com • Library Journal • Publishers Weekly
 
In this brilliant narrative, Amanda Foreman tells the fascinating story of the American Civil War—and the major role played by Britain and its citizens in that epic struggle. Between 1861 and 1865, thousands of British citizens volunteered for service on both sides of the Civil War. From the first cannon blasts on Fort Sumter to Lee’s surrender at Appomattox, they served as officers and infantrymen, sailors and nurses, blockade runners and spies. Through personal letters, diaries, and journals, Foreman introduces characters both humble and grand, while crafting a panoramic yet intimate view of the war on the front lines, in the prison camps, and in the great cities of both the Union and the Confederacy. In the drawing rooms of London and the offices of Washington, on muddy fields and aboard packed ships, Foreman reveals the decisions made, the beliefs held and contested, and the personal triumphs and sacrifices that ultimately led to the reunification of America.
 
“Engrossing . . . a sprawling drama.”—The Washington Post
 
“Eye-opening . . . immensely ambitious and immensely accomplished.”—The New Yorker
 
WINNER OF THE FLETCHER PRATT AWARD FOR CIVIL WAR HISTORY

Personal Injury Lawyer Los Angeles – FREE CONSULTATION by Personal Injury Attorney Los Angeles – Legal Defenders, Los Angeles Personal Injury Lawyers – Law Offices of Burg and Brock, who have won over $100 million in verdicts and settlements for clients

Page took 3 seconds to load.