Construction Injury Litigation: Paving the Road Through Discovery
When conducting discovery in personal injury matters that arise from construction accidents, the discovery requests, like in other matters, dictate the documents received. However, the difference is that with a construction project, there are a number of documents, areas of inquiry, and file materials that are important in an attempt to establish your claims against the owner or various contractors, but if not properly requested, they may not be produced. If the request is too broad (i.e., the construction file), you will be faced with an objection that the request simply seeks every bill, receipt, invoice, subcontract, etc., and many documents that have absolutely nothing to do with the issues in your litigation. If the request is too specific, and if you do not ask for the materials the correct way, you may not receive them (i.e., produce JSAs; response "none"—unbeknownst to the requesting party, the contractor did not use JSAs, they used JHAs (see below)). When pursuing a premises liability case, motor vehicle accident case, a dog bite case, etc., the world of documents is much smaller and less particularized. However, there are a number of areas that should be explored in a construction accident case, depending upon the type of accident. The intent of this article is not to identify every single document, as the requests are case specific. Nevertheless, some documents should be requested in all cases, such as all contracts, subcontracts, scopes of work, change orders, safety manuals, accident reports, and photographs, while keeping in mind there are many, many more materials to request.
August 21, 2017 at 01:06 PM
15 minute read
When conducting discovery in personal injury matters that arise from construction accidents, the discovery requests, like in other matters, dictate the documents received. However, the difference is that with a construction project, there are a number of documents, areas of inquiry, and file materials that are important in an attempt to establish your claims against the owner or various contractors, but if not properly requested, they may not be produced. If the request is too broad (i.e., the construction file), you will be faced with an objection that the request simply seeks every bill, receipt, invoice, subcontract, etc., and many documents that have absolutely nothing to do with the issues in your litigation. If the request is too specific, and if you do not ask for the materials the correct way, you may not receive them (i.e., produce JSAs; response “none”—unbeknownst to the requesting party, the contractor did not use JSAs, they used JHAs (see below)). When pursuing a premises liability case, motor vehicle accident case, a dog bite case, etc., the world of documents is much smaller and less particularized. However, there are a number of areas that should be explored in a construction accident case, depending upon the type of accident. The intent of this article is not to identify every single document, as the requests are case specific. Nevertheless, some documents should be requested in all cases, such as all contracts, subcontracts, scopes of work, change orders, safety manuals, accident reports, and photographs, while keeping in mind there are many, many more materials to request.
For example, you should request all building permits for a number of reasons. Oftentimes the building permit process has a certification section in which the applicant agrees to be bound by all applicable rules, regulations, laws, etc. Therefore, the applicant, at the outset, has agreed to be bound by OSHA and any other applicable rules and regulations. You will need the permits to know who the applicant was, as it is not always the owner or the general contractor but may be the particular subcontractor responsible for the specific work in issue.
Further, discovery through the building permit process may often reveal additional documents, plans, communications, etc., that might not ordinarily be produced otherwise. While you make the building permits part of your discovery requests, also reach out to the local building inspector's office and obtain the job file for the project as well. The undersigned has seen more than one case, even very large $100 million-plus projects, where no building permit was ever obtained. This, in and of itself, makes for some interesting discovery issues. It is also recommended the deed be obtained as many companies, especially on large projects, create a new company for ownership of purely that property.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Pittsburgh History': Boring Name, Big Development for Attorney-Client Privilege
6 minute readSettlement of Commercial Litigation Matters: Approaches and Issues to Keep in Mind
8 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Big Law Begins 2025 With Boston Laterals and Deals
- 2Vinson & Elkins Expands Environmental Team with Chair of Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
- 3From Courtrooms to Conversations: The Unexpected Joys of Podcasting as a Lawyer
- 4'A More Nuanced Issue': NJ Supreme Court Considers Appellate Rules for Personal Injury Judgments
- 5Drake Sues UMG for Defamation Over Promotion of False Claims of Pedophilia
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250