Leadership in Construction-Law Development
The experienced accident attorneys at Koonz, McKenney, Johnson, DePaolis & Lightfoot, L.L.P., have pioneered the development of law favorable to construction-accident victims. For example, our firm won the landmark case establishing the right of injured construction workers in the District of Colombia to receive monetary damages above and beyond workers'-compensation benefits: Meiggs v. Associated Builders, Inc., 545 A.2d 631 (D.C. 1988). In that case, Mr. Meiggs, the employee of a subcontractor, was injured on a construction site and received workers-compensation benefits from his employer, consisting of payment for his medical expenses and a percentage of the wages he lost due to his injury. He could not sue his employer, the subcontractor, for the rest of his lost wages or for his pain and suffering because the law gives employers immunity from lawsuits by injured employees seeking these types of monetary damages. On behalf of Mr. Meiggs, we sued the general contractor on the construction site whose negligence caused his injuries. The general contractor argued that it should be entitled to the same type of immunity from lawsuits as Mr. Meiggs’ employer. Our appellate specialist, Marc Fiedler, argued that the general contractor was not Mr. Meiggs’ employer and therefore was not entitled to immunity. The D.C. Court of Appeals ruled in our favor. It concluded that Mr. Meiggs could both receive workers’-compensation benefits from his employer and also sue “third parties” (that is, wrongdoers other than his employer, such as the general contractor) for additional damages, including pain and suffering.
Our personal-injury law firm has also been at the forefront in establishing new legal theories under which these third parties may be required to compensate construction-accident victims. Two new legal theories were adopted in Fry v. Diamond Constr., Inc., 659 A.2d 241 (D.C. 1995). In that case, Mr. Fry, the employee of a painting subcontractor, suffered severe and disabling injuries when the ladder and scaffolding on which he was working collapsed, causing him to fall thirty-two feet to the pavement below. After securing workers’-compensation benefits for Mr. Fry from his employer, our firm sued the general contractor, claiming its negligence led to Mr. Fry's accident. The trial judge disagreed and dismissed the lawsuit. On appeal, our appellate specialist, Marc Fiedler, argued that the general contractor could be required to pay money damages under several legal theories. The D.C. Court of Appeals agreed. For the first time it ruled that a general contractor could be held liable for failing to exercise reasonable care either by hiring or retaining a careless subcontractor or by directing the subcontractor to perform work in an unsafe manner.
Our personal-injury law firm succeeded in establishing another new legal theory favoring workers in Traudt v. Potomac Elec. Power Co., 692 A.2d 1326 (D.C. 1997). Mr. Traudt, who was employed by an asbestos-removal company, suffered severe burns when the screwdriver he was using pierced the insulation on a live wire, causing an explosion. After our firm obtained workers’-compensation benefits for Mr. Traudt from his employer, we sued the utility company that hired his employer. The trial judge dismissed the suit. Mr. Fiedler argued on appeal that the utility company could be could be required to pay money damages for failing to take special precautions against the peculiar risk of harm that removal of installation from an energized, high-voltage power line was likely to create. The D.C. Court of Appeals agreed, adopted that theory of liability, and reinstated the lawsuit.
The appellate victories in the Meiggs, Fry, and Traudt cases obviously were beneficial for the particular injured workers that we successfully represented. Following our appellate victories, we were able to obtain substantial monetary accident settlements for each of these workers. But just as important, the appellate decisions in these cases constitute legal precedent. Because the D.C. Court of Appeals has the final say on what the law is in the District of Columbia, its rulings in these cases establish authoritative standards that will govern all similar construction-accident cases in the future. As a result of these rulings, the personal-injury lawyers at Koonz, McKenney, Johnson, DePaolis & Lightfoot, L.L.P. have been able to obtain significant monetary compensation for hundreds of other construction-accident victims. For example, when a concrete laborer foreman who was assisting with a concrete pour on a building under construction lost his balance and fell four stories to the ground, resulting in serious injuries to his head, wrist, shoulder, and back, our firm won a seven-figure verdict against the general contractor and a subcontractor who negligently failed to ensure that appropriate guardrails were in place to prevent falls. Similarly, when a worker was struck in the head and injured by a piece of drywall that fell from a building under construction, we secured a substantial settlement for him from the general contractor and a subcontractor who had negligently failed to prevent the drywall from falling. These cases show that being represented by skillful and knowledgeable accident attorneys makes all the difference in obtaining the best results for workers hurt in construction accidents.