DESIGNER MOCKUP · amparolawfirm.com homepage · brand tokens locked · placeholder photography
Patterns: forklift and telehandler accidents, vehicles operating on site, swinging crane loads, falling crane loads, skid steers and excavators, hoist car and cab strikes, and power equipment kickbacks.
23-9 (power-operated equipment), 23-9.2 (operation requirements and operator qualifications), 23-9.6 (aerial baskets and lifts), 23-9.5 (excavating machines), 23-1.5 (general safety requirements including operator competence).
Where the GC or owner knew of the dangerous condition — chronic backing forklift problems, an operator with a history of incidents, an inadequate spotter system.
When the struck-by event involves gravity — a falling load, a swinging boom.
Liable parties: property owner, general contractor, subcontractor employing the equipment operator, equipment lessor if defective, equipment manufacturer in product liability claims.
Injuries include crush injuries, traumatic brain injury, spinal injuries, amputations, internal organ damage, and fatalities.
Damages: medical, lost earnings, pain and suffering, loss of consortium, wrongful death where applicable.
Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
Jordan reads work zone safety plans, spotter assignments, radio protocols, route designations, and pedestrian-vehicle separation the way a developer reads them. He knows when a spotter assignment is on paper only. He recognizes when the GC’s site logistics plan was last updated. He can identify the day or shift when the work zone got more chaotic than the plan accommodated.
In a typical negligence case, the defense will argue your case down with comparative-fault arguments — that you weren’t paying attention, that you took a shortcut, that you should have known better. Under §240, those arguments generally cannot defeat the claim. That is why §240 cases tend to settle higher and earlier than negligence-only construction cases.