- Home
- Practice Areas
- Personal Injury Information
- Houston Personal Injury Lawyer
- What is a Personal Injury?
- Can I File an Injury Claim?
- Statute of Limitations
- What Makes Up a Strong Case?
- Personal Injury Damages
- Personal Injury Categories
- Vicarious Liability
- Injury Attorneys in Houston
- Houston Premises Liability
- Child Injury Cases in Houston
- Preponderance of Evidence
- Burn and Scald Injury
- Free Online Legal Advice
- Houston Personal Injury Law Firm
- Conroe Personal Injury Attorney
- Missouri City Personal Injuries
- More...
- Houston Pro Bono Lawyer
- Houston Personal Injury Accident Claim
- Houston PI Lawyer
- Houston Personal Injury Law Attorney
- Alternative Dispute Resolution
- Amputation Accidents in Houston
- Houston Personal Injury Legal Advice
- Spinal Cord Injury
- Houston Personal Injury Lawyers
- Houston Personal Injury Attorneys
- Mitigating Damages After an Injury
- Proving the Proximate Cause
- Thin Skull Rule
- Broken Bones
- Mediation in an Injury Lawsuit
- Houston Personal Injury Law
- Subrogation Reimbursement
- Best Injury Lawyer in Houston
- Clear Lake Personal Injury Lawyer
- Deer Park Personal Injury Attorney
- Galveston Personal Injury Lawyer
- Pasadena Personal Injury Attorney
- Sugar Land Personal Injury Lawyer
- Texas City Personal Injury Attorney
- Wrongful Death Information
- Houston Wrongful Death Lawyer
- Statute of Limitations
- Texas Wrongful Death Law
- Texas Survival Statute
- Fatal Car Accidents
- Truck Accident Fatalities
- Plane and Aviation Fatalities
- Houston Fatal Boating Accidents
- Motorycle Accident Wrongful Death Cases
- Houston Work Related Death Cases
- Fatal Construction Accidents in Houston Texas
- Fatal Pedestrian Accidents in Houston
- Houston Elderly Wrongful Deaths
- Conroe Wrongful Death Lawyer
- Deer Park Wrongful Death Lawyer
- Galveston Wrongful Death Lawyer
- Pasadena Wrongful Death Lawyer
- Sugar Land Wrongful Death Lawyer
- 18-Wheeler Truck Accidents
- Houston Trucking Accident Attorney
- Houston 18-Wheeler Accident Info
- Flatbed Trailer Accidents
- Trucking Accident Claim
- Cargo Related Trucking Accidents
- Intoxicated Truck Driver Accidents
- Unsafe Trucking Company Practices
- Commercial Vehicle Accidents in Houston
- Accidents Caused by Defective Truck Tires
- Conroe 18-Wheeler Accidents
- Houston Fatal Truck Accident Attorney
- Galveston Truck Accident Lawyer
- More...
- Houston Truck Accident Lawyer
- Houston Dump Truck Accidents
- Houston Tractor Trailer Accident Lawyer
- Accidents with Construction Vehicles
- Houston Truck Crash Attorney
- Sugar Land Truck Accident Lawyer
- Houston Trucking Accident Lawyer
- Houston Truck Injury Lawyer
- Pasadena 18-Wheeler Accident Attorney
- Houston 18-Wheeler Accident Lawyer
- Flatbed Truck Accidents
- Houston Truck Accident Lawyers
- Houston Tractor Trailer Accident Attorney
- Big Rig Accidents in Houston
- Houston Truck Attorney
- Houston 18-Wheeler Attorney
- Conroe Truck Accident Lawyer
- Galveston 18-Wheeler Accidents
- Pasadena Truck Accident Lawyer
- Sugar Land 18-Wheeler Accidents
- Clear Lake Truck Accident Lawyer
- Deer Park Truck Accident Lawyer
- Houston Truck Accident Lawsuits
- Texas City 18-Wheeler Accidents
- Car Accidents
- Houston Automobile Accident Attorney
- How the Claims Process Works
- Statute of Limitations
- Fatal Car Accidents
- Denied Car Insurance Claims
- Damages Available in a Car Accident
- Negligent Entrustment of a Vehicle
- Injury to a Child
- Rollover Accidents
- Can You Trust the Insurance Adjuster?
- Auto Accident Attorney in Houston
- Conroe Car Accident Lawyer
- More...
- Houston Auto Accident Attorney
- How Property Damage Affects Your Personal Injury Claim
- Rear End Collision
- Head, Neck and Back Injuries
- Soft Tissue Injuries
- Car Accidents Resulting in Psychological Damages
- Accidents Caused by Drivers on Their Cell Phone
- Getting a Rental Car
- We can help you get Medical Attention
- How to Handle a Car Accident Claim
- Houston Insurance Attorney
- How Uninsured and Underinsured Claims Work
- How Personal Injury Protection (PIP) Works
- How Witness Statements Affect Your Claim
- Accident Mediation Process
- How to Handle Disputed Liability
- Clear Lake Car Accident Lawyer
- Galveston Car Accident Lawyer
- Houston Accident Attorney
- Houston Accident Injury Lawyer
- Houston Car Accident Lawyer
- Pasadena Car Accident Lawyer
- Sugar Land Car Accident Lawyer
- Texas City Car Accident Lawyer
- Drunk Driving Accidents
- Houston Drunk Driver Accident Lawyer
- Dram Shop and Liquor Liability Cases in Houston
- Fatal Drunk Driving Accidents
- Galveston Drunk Driver Accidents
- Texas Drunk Driver Accident Statistics
- Conroe Drunken Driver Accidents
- Pasadena Drunk Driving Accidents
- Sugar Land Drunk Driver Accidents
- Texas City Drunk Driving Accidents
- On The Job Injuries
- On the Job Injury Attorney
- Worker's Compensation
- Non Subscriber Cases
- Injuries Caused by Machinery
- Houston Drilling Accident Injury
- Houston Mesothelioma Attorney
- Forklift Injury Cases Houston Texas
- Pasadena Work Injury Lawyer
- Slip and Fall Accidents
- Conroe Work Injury Lawyer
- Houston Lifting Injury
- More...
- Industrial Accidents
- Houston Warehouse Injury Attorneys
- Shiping and Receiving Dock Injuries
- Houston Carpal Tunnel Office Injuries
- Houston Delivery Driver Injuries
- Subscriber Claims and Workers Compensation
- Loading Dock Accidents and Waterfront Injuries
- Houston Oilfield Injuries
- Toxic Exposure and Asbestos Cases
- Galveston Work Injury Lawyer
- Sugar Land Work Injury Lawyer
- Construction Accidents
- Job Site Injury Attorneys
- Workers Compensation Cases in Houston Texas
- Houston Non Subscriber Cases
- Construction Site Hazards
- Heavy Equipment Injuries in Houston
- Electric Shock Cases in Houston Texas
- Crush Injuries on Houston Construction Sites
- Power Tools Injuries and Accidents in Houston Texas
- Houston Trench Collapse Attorney
- More...
- Trench Collapses in Houston Texas
- Houston Hazardous Chemical Exposure
- Construction Accidents Caused by Equipment Malfunction
- Scaffolding Accidents and Injuries in Houston
- Houston Road Worker Injuries
- On the Job Burn Injuries
- Houston Crane Accidents
- Fallling Injuries in Houston
- Structure Collapse Cases Houston Texas
- Maritime Injuries
- Product Defect Liability
- Prescription Drug Injury
- Medical Malpractice
- Birth Injuries
- Day Care Child Abuse
- Drowning Accidents
- Other Vehicle Accidents
- Personal Injury Information
- Successes
- Meet Our Attorneys
- Information Center
- Contact Us
Houston Crane Accidents
Texas Attorney Michael Grossman Discusses Houston Crane Accident Injuries and Your Options to Recover Compensation

If you or someone you love has been injured in a crane accident, the attorneys at Grossman Law Offices are here to help you.
Nobody can build any large building without the assistance of cranes. In the United States, there are currently 125,000 cranes used for transporting heavy machinery and supplies essential for building skyscrapers, stadiums, cathedrals, or any other large building. The use of other equipment can complicate the operation of a crane, making it extremely dangerous both for the crane operator and any worker or innocent bystander below the apparatus.
Devastating Injuries
With such heavy machinery involved, crane accidents can be catastrophic. People can be crushed when the crane drops its payload, or when the line snaps. Buildings can be flattened when the crane topples or slams into other structures. People can be caught up and crushed in the crane’s mechanical workings. Operators can be electrocuted when cranes strike power lines, an injury that could have been easily avoided had the employer provided an electricity arresting device like a nonconductive hook that goes behind the payload hook. The number of injuries and fatalities that can result from crane injuries are extensive: electrical shock, burns, traumatic brain trauma, dismemberment, spinal cord injury or even death.
Who is to Blame?
If you have been injured in a crane accident, any number of different parties may be responsible. Of course, if your employer neglected to maintain their duty to provide a reasonably safe working environment for you, then they can be held accountable under a workers compensation claim, but it’s also possible that someone else’s negligence caused the accident. The property owner may have left equipment in the way of the crane that caused the accident, and the crane operator may have not operated the crane in a safe manner. If someone’s negligence caused the accident, then you can file a lawsuit to recover compensation for your injuries. The Houston construction accident lawyers at Grossman Law Offices have been litigating crane accident cases for 20 years, and we can help you through the complex process of seeking compensation.
Taking on Your Employer
Due to the inherent dangers of operating cranes and the severe injuries that generally result when things go awry, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration has instituted a number of guidelines for the use of cranes on construction sites:

- Employers must comply with all manufacturer limitations and instructions regarding the operation of the crane.
- Instructions and warnings regarding the load capacity and safety warnings must be visible to the crane operator while he is operating the crane.
- The employer must make certain that the crane has been inspected by a competent safety inspector prior to use. If there is any broken or defective machinery, it must be replaced before usage.
- The employer is responsible for ensuring that the crane is placed at a safe distance from overhead electrical lines. In cases where a crane must be operated near an electrical line, then the employer must take action to ensure the electrical line is not operational.
If your employer has failed to comply with any of these standards, resulting in an injury to you, then you have the right to seek compensation. However, the method of compensation differs dramatically whether or not your employer purchased workman’s compensation insurance. Employers in Texas that have workers' comp are known as subscribers. Employers in Texas that do not have workers' comp insurance are known as non-subscribers.
Texas law does not require construction companies to purchase workers’ comp insurance, but it does encourage them to do so. Since workmen’s compensation insurance is very expensive, many companies choose not to buy the insurance. In order to avoid a lawsuit, many employers will fake having the insurance once one of their workers is injured. You can’t trust your employer just because they said the company subscribes to workers’ comp insurance. You need an experienced Houston construction accident lawyer to find out what the truth is and determine what your legal options really are.
Once our attorneys have identified what kind of case you have, we will know how to proceed.
Subscribers
Employers who subscribe to workmen’s compensation insurance purchase more than just insurance – they also receive protection from lawsuits. If you are injured on the job, or a family member has been killed at work, you cannot sue a subscribing employer unless he or she caused a wrongful death by committing gross negligence. However, that doesn’t mean you’re going to get the compensation you deserve.
If life were perfect, the insurance provider would be motivated by a need to provided for injured parties, and all of the medical bills, lost wages and pain and suffering would be compensated fairly and without hassle. However, life isn’t perfect, and insurance companies are in business to make money, not help people.
Both insurance companies and non-subscribing employers will try to avoid fairly compensating their injured employees, and countless construction workers each year in Houston and around Texas are unfairly denied the equitable compensation to which they are entitled.
While workers’ compensation laws were created to decrease excess litigation caused by accidents and injuries in the work place, sometimes, a lawsuit is the only means to the end of getting the compensation you deserve. If litigation is required, you need the skills of an experienced Houston construction accident lawyer to make the insurance companies give you the restitution you deserve.
Be assured that the insurance company will come armed with a team of specialized attorneys. They will try to strong-arm you into accepting a sub-par settlement for damages that do not adequately compensate you for your injuries and lost wages. All so they can increase profits. You need he help of an attorney who knows how to accurately assess damages and determine when the insurance company is trying to give you the short end of the stick.
Exceptions for Suing Subscriber Employers
Depending on the particular circumstances of a work accident involving a subscriber employer in Texas, a victim may have recourse to seek legal action against a negligent subscriber employer or a liable third party.
- If the gross negligence of your family member’s employer led directly to the death of your loved one, then you may file a wrongful death lawsuit, even if the employer subscribes to workers' comp. We represented the family of one construction worker who died when his employer ordered him to work on a crane without a proper safety harness. After the worker fell to his death, the employer rushed out to buy a safety harness and attached it to the corpse. When we went to trial, we made the employer pay dearly for killing his employee with his gross negligence.
- As mentioned before, someone else’s negligence, besides the employer, may have led to an injury suffered in a crane accident. The owner of the property may not have provided safe working conditions, manufacturers may be liable for malfunctioning machinery that cause injuries, the operator may not have used the crane in a safe manner, or another contractor or employee could have negligently caused the injury. In this case, you can sue the responsible party instead of the employer. It takes an experienced crane accident attorney, who has been devising strategy for construction injury cases for years, to know the right course to achieve success with a complex crane accident claim like this. It takes experience to know how to identify all responsible parties and hold them accountable for the injuries they have caused. In the event that a worker suffers injury due to the negligence of a subscribing employer and a negligent third party, that injured worker may be able to seek compensation through both a workers' comp claim (against their employer) and a personal injury lawsuit (against any third parties).
Non-subscribers

In order to save a few bucks, many employers avoid subscribing to workers’ compensation insurance, particularly in construction where insurance costs can be titanic. These employers are called non-subscribers, and you will likely need the help of a skilled attorney to ensure you will receive the equitable compensation you deserve, if you are taking on a non-subscribing employer.
The Texas Legislature created workers compensation laws to punish non-subscribers for creating more litigation, so if you have been injured working for a non-subscribing construction company you can often pursue greater than if your employer had just purchased workers comp insurance. Moreover, you need only prove standard negligence and not gross negligence.
The law only gets more complex in non-subscriber cases; however, so the knowledge of an experienced Houston construction accident lawyer is needed to help you through the daunting process.
First, the victim, or plaintiff, needs to file a claim with the employer, informing him or her of the injury and the requested compensation for the harm done. If the employer pays or negotiates a settlement, then the case is resolved, and everyone can go back to enjoying his or her life. However, in most cases the employer contests the claim, and victim must file a lawsuit to secure the compensation due. The plaintiff, as the injured party, carries the burden for proving that the negligence of the employer caused the injury and that the injury has resulted in medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering. Fortunately for the injured, the standard of proof for negligence is much easier to meet than gross negligence and is fairly easy to establish.
Defenses of the Non-Subscribers
An employer who has already neglected to purchase workers’ compensation insurance isn’t going to suddenly going to volunteer to pay an injured employee for the harm done to him or her. In most cases, non-subscribers will attempt to employ one of a couple of defenses to avoid paying compensation to injured employees.
Sole Proximate Cause
The only true defense a non-subscribing employer has following an injury to an employee in a crane accident is to claim the sole proximate cause defense. That means they are going to blame you, the victim for your own injuries.
Since workers’ compensation laws in Texas are designed to discourage litigation, non-subscribers are only afforded one defense, claiming sole proximate cause: that the employee’s was 100 percent responsible for his or her own injuries due to his or her own negligence. In order to invoke the sole proximate cause defense, employers will attempt to sully your reputation to make you look like you’re a routinely negligent employee.
Non-subscribing companies may not have wanted to incur the expense for workers’ compensation insurance, but they will spend money for lawyers and come to court armed with skillful attorneys who know how to make victims look negligent if they don’t have an equally crafty lawyer defending their rights.
Employer-Employee Relationship
While the sole proximate cause defense is the only way non-subscribers can avoid liability after an injury to an employee in a crane accident, many begin trying to avoid that duty before the accident has even occurred. No obligation of safety is owed to contractors, so many construction companies hire their employees as contractors when the law considers them to be employees. Your employer will then attempt to deny the existence of an employer-employee relationship and the responsibility of paying compensation. Why should they be responsible for your injury, if you never actually worked for them?
In many cases, the employer really knows an actual employer-employee relationship exists, and an injured worker can still obtain compensation.
The law may in fact view you as an employee, and you may be entitled to recover compensation for injuries you suffered on the job.
You need a Houston construction accident attorney who knows how to establish the employer-employee relation by meeting one of the following standards:
- The employer withheld social security or taxes from your paycheck.
- The employer provided the essential equipment for the job.
- The employer set a specific work schedule has been set for the job.
- The employer managed, oversaw or inspected your work.
- You performed a task or signed a document that limited your rights while working for the employer, for example: taking a drug test or signing a document that states you comply with an employee handbook.
- You have been employed not just for an undetermined amount of time and not just for a single job.
- You are not paid a salary or an hourly wage and not on a job-by-job basis.
Grossman Law Offices Can Help You

Hiring a Houston construction accident lawyer with experience handling crane injuries is the only way to get on a level playing field with your employer and/or his or her insurance provider. A crane injury attorney can help you identify all of the parties who may have caused your crane accident, so you can seek compensation against all of them and make them pay for the harm they have done to you.
Over the past 20 years, the lawyers at Grossman Law Offices have helped injured construction workers recover millions and millions of dollars in damages. We have the necessary experience and resources to tackle any crane accident case – even those involving multiple defendants. We are familiar with OSHA regulations and have several expert witnesses who can testify regarding issues of workplace safety and the use of heavy machinery on construction sites. To learn more about the specific details of your case and how we can help you, then call us today at 1-855-392-0000 (toll free) for a free consultation. If you hire us, we will make sure the party or parties who caused your crane accident are held accountable.
Some of Our Most Recent Successful Cases
$226,000.00 Recovery - Workplace Accident (Shoulder Injury Requiring Surgery)
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.
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.
Total Recovery:
$226,000.00
$226,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$84,000.00
$84,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$5,500.00
$5,500.00
$335,000.00 Recovery - Wrongful Death/ Commercial Vehicle Accident
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.
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.
Total Recovery:
$335,000.00
$335,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$134,000.00
$134,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$63,000.00
$63,000.00
$700,000.00 Recovery - Commercial Vehicle Accident / Work Injury (Fractured Pelvis, Other Internal Injuries)
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.
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.
Total Recovery:
$700,000.00
$700,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$175,000.00
$175,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$1,084.00
$1,084.00
$300,000.00 Recovery - Commercial Vehicle Accident / Work Injury (Facial Fractures and Head Trauma)
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.
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.
Total Recovery:
$300,000.00
$300,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$120,000.00
$120,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$9,807.00
$9,807.00
$162,500.00 Recovery - Workplace Accident (Shoulder Injury)
Recovered for worker who injured their shoulder while lifting a heavy object.
Recovered for worker who injured their shoulder while lifting a heavy object.
Total Recovery:
$162,500.00
$162,500.00
Attorney Fees:
$81,250.00
$81,250.00
Litigation Expenses:
$3,784.00
$3,784.00
$125,000.00 Recovery - Workplace Accident (Closed-Head Injury)
Recovery for injured worker who suffered a closed head injury in a scaffolding accident.
Recovery for injured worker who suffered a closed head injury in a scaffolding accident.
Total Recovery:
$125,000.00
$125,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$30,000.00
$30,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$2,135.00
$2,135.00
$550,000.00 Recovery - Wrongful Death / Workers' Compensation Gross Negligence
(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.
(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.
Total Recovery:
$550,000.00
$550,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$220,000.00
$220,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$40,000.00
$40,000.00
$150,000.00 Recovery - Wrongful Death / Workplace Accident
(policy limits) Recovery of a disputed life insurance policy for the family of a contractor who died on the job.
(policy limits) Recovery of a disputed life insurance policy for the family of a contractor who died on the job.
Total Recovery:
$150,000.00
$150,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$50,000.00
$50,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$341.00
$341.00
$550,000.00 Recovery - Workplace Accident (Closed-Head Injury)
A painter fell from an apartment balcony resulting in a closed-head injury and other minor bodily injuries. The case was successfully resolved through litigation against the plaintiff's employer and the general contractor.
A painter fell from an apartment balcony resulting in a closed-head injury and other minor bodily injuries. The case was successfully resolved through litigation against the plaintiff's employer and the general contractor.
Total Recovery:
$550,000.00
$550,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$220,000.00
$220,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$20,465.00
$20,465.00
$1,450,000.00 Recovery - Commercial Vehicle Accident (Brain Injury)
Our firm was hired by a delivery driver who suffered a closed head injury resulting in the permanent loss of smell in a head-on accident. The incident occurred as the driver of an 18-wheeler lost control of his vehicle and veered into oncoming traffic. Our client's delivery vehicle was struck head-on, causing massive damage to both vehicles.
Our client was taken to an area hospital where he was treated for minor bodily injuries and a closed head injury which originally manifested itself as a concussion and temporary memory loss.
Suit was filed against the defendants following their failure to respond to our correspondence in a timely manner and litigation began. Included in the suit were both the defendant truck driver and his employer. The results of our investigation and the physical evidence from the accident scene made it apparent that the defendants had indeed caused the accident. Defense counsel soon conceded liability
Our firm was hired by a delivery driver who suffered a closed head injury resulting in the permanent loss of smell in a head-on accident. The incident occurred as the driver of an 18-wheeler lost control of his vehicle and veered into oncoming traffic. Our client's delivery vehicle was struck head-on, causing massive damage to both vehicles.
Our client was taken to an area hospital where he was treated for minor bodily injuries and a closed head injury which originally manifested itself as a concussion and temporary memory loss.
Suit was filed against the defendants following their failure to respond to our correspondence in a timely manner and litigation began. Included in the suit were both the defendant truck driver and his employer. The results of our investigation and the physical evidence from the accident scene made it apparent that the defendants had indeed caused the accident. Defense counsel soon conceded liability
Total Recovery:
$1,450,000.00
$1,450,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$560,000.00
$560,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$31,410.00
$31,410.00








