Sudden changes in road grade and quality affect even the most skilled motorcyclists.
San Antonio is experiencing major road construction projects across the city, and motorcyclists are paying a high price.
How Do You Know When You Need a Worker’s Comp Attorney for Your Claim?
There are roughly 340 million people injured at work in the United States every year. If an employer has worker’s compensation coverage, otherwise referred to as worker’s comp, then the injuries sustained by the worker should be paid for. However, this is not always the case. So, how do you know when it’s a good idea to hire an experienced worker’s comp attorney to help you file your claim?
How do you know if you have a personal injury claim? You can suffer personal injuries when injured physically, psychologically, or emotionally usually due to negligence, carelessness, or wrongful conduct of another individual. It’s typically the case that when an individual files a personal injury claim, they or someone they love sustained injuries due to another’s negligent actions.
Because personal injury law covers a vast amount of different situations, it’s extremely important for you to consult with an experienced lawyer if you believe you have a personal injury claim. For instance, you are potentially at risk of suffering personal injuries in situations such as automobile accidents, trucking accidents, dog bites, motorcycle accidents, and many others.
Given this information, you need to seek professional legal advice from an experienced lawyer to know if you have a personal injury claim. A personal injury attorney will aim to determine who is responsible for the injury or death. They then evaluate the legal issues applicable in a particular situation and determine which course of action is best for their clients. If required, they will file a personal injury lawsuit on behalf of those injured. They take these steps in order to protect the injured party’s rights and ensure proper compensation is received.
The Supreme Court of Texas recently issued a decision following a petition from review from the Court of Appeals for the Fifth District. The court was tasked with determining whether a general contractor on a construction project owed a duty of care to a subcontractor’s employee who suffered injuries on the job. The general contractor hired a subcontractor to erect a concrete tower. The victim, an employee of the subcontractor, suffered injuries when the tower detached and fell on his legs. The victim filed a lawsuit against the general contractor alleging negligence and gross negligence. He argued that the defendant had contractual and actual control over the subcontractor’s work and thus owed the victim a duty of care. The trial court found in the defendant’s favor, and the court of appeals reversed.
On petition to the Supreme Court of Texas, the defendant argued that it did not owe the victim a duty of care. Generally, under Texas law, an entity that employs an independent contractor does not maintain a duty to ensure that the subcontractor performs its work safely. However, an exception applies when the contractor maintains some level of control over the way the contractor performs the work that caused the damage. The element of control must relate to the activity or condition that caused the injury. Further, the control must extend to the “means, methods, or details” of the independent subcontractor’s work.
In this case, the defendant argued that it did not have actual control over the subcontractor. It cited testimony where the subcontractor’s superintendent stated that the contractor did not instruct any of the subcontractor’s employees and no one from the contracting company told him how to install the tower or its braces. In response, the plaintiff argued that the contracting company asserted actual control by having someone on-site every day to inspect for safety. Additionally, someone from the company was there to inspect on the day of the accident, and the company was aware that the towers were not appropriately braced for wind. However, the court found no evidence that the contracting company exercised control over the subcontractor’s work. Further, the court reasoned that the courts have not recognized the presence of a safety employee as enough to give rise to actual control.
The Supreme Court of Texas recently issued an opinion in a case involving a property owner’s liability for injuries an employee contractor sustained while working on the property. The case arose when the two construction workers suffered injuries while working on a condominium project owned by the defendant. The defendant hired an individual instead of a general contractor to manage the project. A high-voltage power line hung behind the property, and the defendants told the project manager about the line because it was “too close” to the building. The project manager advised the plaintiffs to begin the project even though the power line was still intact. While working on the project, electricity shot down the rebar, and the power line snapped, causing the workers to suffer burns and other serious injuries.
The workers filed a negligence lawsuit against the power company and the defendants. The trial court entered a judgment per a jury finding that the property owner was liable under ordinary-negligence and premises-liability theories.
The defendant appealed, arguing that the employee’s evidence was not legally sufficient under Chapter 95. In response, the plaintiffs argued that the Chapter does not apply, the defendant waived some arguments, and the evidence was legally sufficient. Amongst several issues, the defendant argued that they could not be held liable because the danger was open and obvious. Under Texas law, a danger is open and obvious when the invitee possesses “knowledge and full appreciation” of the hazard’s extent and nature. Typically, when the danger is open and obvious, the property owner does not maintain a duty to warn of the danger or make the premises safe. Inquiries regarding whether a danger is open and obvious are not subjective but rather what a reasonably prudent person would have known. Courts will look to the totality of the “particular circumstances.”
Many Texans spend the majority of their time at work. As a result, San Antonio workplace accidents are very common, even for those with jobs that are not physically demanding. Indeed, an on-the-job accident can occur at any moment, and for almost any reason. Thus, all employees need to understand their options when it comes to recovering after a work-related accident.
There are two types of claims that a worker can bring after an on-the-job accident. The first, a workers’ compensation claim, is the more common of the two types of claims. The workers’ compensation system provides employees a simplified way to obtain compensation for a work-related accident without needing to prove that their employer was at fault. Because the workers’ compensation program is a no-fault system, these claims are typically quicker to process than traditional personal injury claims.
The main drawback of workers’ compensation claims is the availability of damages. Injured employees who successfully bring a Texas workers’ compensation claim can obtain benefits for their medical expenses, lost wages, and any decrease in earning capacity. However, unlike a personal injury case, a workers’ comp claim does not entitle an employee to non-economic damages.
Photo Credit: KRIS TV
(February 20, 2020 Aransas Pass, TX) A 2-year-old girl fell into a septic tank Wednesday evening of the 19th at the Paradise Lagoons RV Resort in Aransas Pass. The child identified as Charleigh Nicole Nelson had been walking on the lid of the tank when she fell in.
Rescue attempts were made by both family and neighbors, but they were unsuccessful. The Rockport and Fulton Volunteer Fire Departments along with Aransas Pass FD were called out but they were also unable to rescue the toddler. The rescue turned into recovery by calling in the Ingleside Volunteer Fire Department who was able to reach the body by lowering a firefighter into a 2 foot wide hole with a specialized rope. The tank itself was filled with over 2 feet of water in which the child had been submerged for over an hour.
Google Earth
Bryan, Texas, February 8, 2020: A second explosion happened at one of Chesapeake Energy’s oil wells in the Eagle Ford Shale just two weeks after a Jan. 29 deadly explosion at a Chesapeake Energy oil well site in nearby Burleson County. Three men were killed and one man was left hospitalized in the Burleson incident. Bryan Maldonado, 25, and Windell Beddingfield died in what is the deadliest oilfield accident since January 2018.
Authorities are investigating the accident which occurred about 1 a.m. Saturday at a storage tank on the company’s Luther lease off Sandy Point and Old San Antonio Roads in a rural area of Brazos County about eight miles northwest of Bryan.
Photo Credit: KWTX
(BURLESON COUNTY, Texas, Feb 3, 2020) Three oil field contractors have died and another is still in the hospital after an oil well blowout and the resulting fire in Burleson County, Texas.
The accident happened at a well site near Deanville, on County Road 127 and FM 60, southwest of Bryan on January 29th. The Chesapeake Energy owned well was undergoing major maintenance operations by contractors employed by CC Forbes and Eagle Pressure Control when the explosion occurred.
In a recent Texas construction case, the court considered injuries arising from the collapse of a crane on a commercial construction site. The issue the appellate court examined was whether the plaintiff was prevented from obtaining damages under common law, due to the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act.
The case arose when the superintendent for the general contractor on a big construction project was injured in connection with the installation of pilings. To install pilings, the crew drilled a hole in the earth and then pumped grout into the hole. A steel rebar cage was dropped into the grout, which hardened around the cage to form a piling. Heavy machinery is used to build the piling. One of the subcontractors had adopted several policies to make sure the pilings were finished safely.
After a piling was completed, the crew had several cubic yards of grout left over, but the grout was insufficient to fully complete another hole. The superintendent of the subcontractor ordered the crew to start another piling. The foreman opposed this plan but agreed to follow it anyway. The superintendent of the subcontractor left, and grout was pumped into a new hole on the assumption that another shipment of grout would be arriving soon. That shipment was delayed, and the grout started to harden. When the grout finally arrived and was mixed into the old grout, the pressure under the old grout built up and caused the augur to shoot up. The cable backlashed, and the augur got stuck.
Texas Injury Lawyers Blog