قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home / Insurance / The employer must replace the contractor in a $ 8M personal protective suit

The employer must replace the contractor in a $ 8M personal protective suit



An employer failed to show that a lower court wrongly demanded that it replace Home Depot for a personal injury that an employee had filed against the home supply chain, according to a federal court of appeal.

In Rivera v. Home Depot USA Inc. a threesome panel of the 2nd United States Circuit Court of Appeal in New York on Thursday confirmed a US District Court of the South District of New York requiring Spring Valley, New York-based Bryan's Home Improvement Corp., pays the $ 8 million awarded to the employee who suffered severe injury following an electric shock and falling off a ladder.

On August 22, 2015, Daniel Rivera, who performs remodeling work through a contract of employment between his employer Bryans and Atlanta-based Home Depot USA Inc., maintains serious and permanent damage. At the time of his injury, he carried out remodeling work under a contract with Home Depot.

He filed a personal injury against Hem Depot claiming that the company provided building management services in relation to the work he did at the time of the event. He also argued in his complaint that Home Depot was the main contractor of the project and was fully responsible for the workers' security, including Mr. Rivera, on the project.

He accused Home Depot of negligence, carelessness and violation of New York Labor Laws not to give him a safe place to work, cause and or allow insecure workplace conditions, and failure to take action and measures to protect Mr Riveras life, among other allegations, according to the complaint.

A jurisdiction awarded to Mr. Rivera $ 8 million and the court granted Home Depot's request for compensation of Bryan's home improvement.

Bryan accused the decision and argued that the district court failed to find the home of his joint law and contractual remuneration claims and argued that an employer like Bryans could only be liable for a third party for compensation when the employee suffered a serious injury . [1

9659002] However, the second circle found that this limitation of the employer's liability outside the employee's remuneration does not apply if the employer and third party had a contract in place before the employee's accident where the employer agreed to replace third party.

Although Bryan claimed that the master service provider agreement between the company and Home Depot was never signed, but the Court of Appeal found that Bryan's liability was responsible for the contractual compensation theory, since Home Depot was the one who did not sign the contract, and the court noted that the contract did not need to be signed. to be executed "when the party's behavior is such that it turns out to be bound". Therefore, the court argued that it did not have to raise the issue of Rivera's injury was the "Tomb" as a legal issue.

The court also dismissed Bryan's argument regarding the Court's draft summary judgment on financial damage, arguing that it violated Bryan's constitutional right to a jury and was predicted on an expert report lacking medical evidence. However, the appeal court disagreed and found no contradictions in the record of what medical care Mr. Rivera would demand forwards as a result of his injuries or that a damages must always be settled by a jury and confirmed the judgment of the Court.

Lawyers in the case did not immediately respond to the request for comments.

                    


Source link