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.
Struck-by-equipment injuries center on Labor Law §241(6) — the Industrial Code has specific rules on equipment operation, blind spots, spotters, backup alarms, and keeping workers clear — and §200 for how the site was run. If a hoisted or improperly secured load struck you, §240(1) can also apply.
Yes. Missing spotters, signal persons, backup alarms, or barricades are exactly the Industrial Code violations that support a §241(6) claim. We pin down what safeguards the rules required and which were missing.
Yes. You generally can’t sue your own employer (workers’ comp), but the operator’s employer, the equipment owner, the general contractor, and the property owner can all be responsible depending on the facts.
It can be. If a failure of brakes, alarms, controls, or guarding contributed, there may be a product-liability claim against the manufacturer or lessor on top of the Labor Law case.
Usually three years; 90 days for a notice of claim on a public project. Equipment evidence disappears fast — reach out early so it can be preserved.
