$9M Accord Reached in Forklift Accident That Caused Man to Lose Leg
A man whose leg was amputated after being run over by a forklift twice has settled for $9 million his lawsuit against a series of companies and the staffing agency that assigned him to the warehouse where he was injured.
April 25, 2019 at 10:47 AM
4 minute read
Jones v. Mill
$9M Settlement
Date of Settlement: March 13.
Court and Case No.: C.P. Philadelphia No. 170300450.
Judge: Daniel J. Anders.
Type of Action: Personal injury.
Injuries: Crushed leg.
Plaintiffs Counsel: Andrew Duffy and Douglas DiSandro Jr., Saltz Mongeluzzi Barrett & Bendesky, Philadelphia.
Defense Counsel: Susan Engle, Mintzer Sarowitz Zeris, Ledva & Meyer, Phildelphia; Bradley Vance, Reger Rizzo & Darnall, Philadelphia.
Comment:
A man whose leg was amputated after being run over by a forklift twice has settled for $9 million his lawsuit against a series of companies and the staffing agency that assigned him to the warehouse where he was injured.
The settlement, announced Tuesday by the law firm of Saltz Mongeluzzi Barrett & Bendesky, was reached between plaintiff Charles Jones and defendants Mill Corp., Newman & Company, and Bridgeview Paper Company, United States Recycling and staffing agency Corestaff Inc.
According to the plaintiff's pretrial memorandum, Jones was run over twice by a forklift operated by Mill Corp. employee Emmitt Johnson at the Newman & Company warehouse in North Philadelphia in July 2015.
“Mr. Johnson readily admits that, when he ran over Charles, he was not looking where he was going, but instead was operating the forklift in reverse while counting bales of stacked material,” Jones' papers said. “He admits he never sounded his horn and never brought the forklift to a stop before reversing around the corner. He admits that his conduct was 'inexcusable from a safety standpoint.' In sum, Mr. Johnson admits that he violated all basic rules of forklift safety on the date of this tragedy, as a direct result of which he did not see Charles and ran him over.”
Andrew Duffy of Saltz Mongeluzzi represented Jones along with E. Douglas DiSandro Jr. “This was much more than a simple forklift accident case. Defendants raised numerous, workplace-specific defenses that we targeted and attacked throughout discovery,” Duffy said. “We are pleased that Mr. Jones will now receive the care he requires as well as the compensation he deserves.”
After the accident, Jones underwent nine surgeries in an effort to save his leg, but in the end was forced to undergo a below-the-knee amputation.
The plaintiff alleged that Johnson had a record showing “lack of concern for safety and incompetent and inadequate safety training.”
Newman & Company and the related defendants claimed that the accident was caused by comparative negligence on Jones' part.
“Mr. Jones inexplicably walked directly to where the forklift operator was traveling, and never made his presence known to the operator,” court papers said.
The defendants alleged that Corestaff owed it and the other companies a duty of defense and indemnity based on an agreement between the entities. They claimed the accident triggered Corestaff's duty to defend “regardless of whether the accident was caused in whole or in part by” the other defendants, court papers said.
Corestaff, in its pretrial papers, said, “Corestaff, as plaintiff's employer, is immune from plaintiff's claims directly. Corestaff was joined into the case by Newman and Mill, who argue that Corestaff owes defense and indemnity to them vis a vis a 2003 addendum to a contract that does not exist, even after Newman and Mill provided a subsequent 'agreement' which Corestaff expressly refused to execute without significant changes, indicating a lack of a meeting of the minds. Corestaff does not owe defendants defense and/or indemnity.”
Corestaff's attorney, Susan Engle of Mintzer Sarowitz Zeris, Ledva & Meyers, declined to comment.
Bradley Vance, the attorney for Mill Corp., Newman & Company, Bridgeview Paper Company, and United States Recycling, did not respond to a request for comment.
—P.J. D'Annunzio, of The Law Weekly
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
© 2024 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 AllThe Defense Bar Is Feeling the Strain: Busy Med Mal Trial Schedules Might Be Phila.'s 'New Normal'
7 minute readFederal Judge Allows Elderly Woman's Consumer Protection Suit to Proceed Against Citizens Bank
5 minute readJudge Leaves Statute of Limitations Question in Injury Crash Suit for a Jury
4 minute readSupreme Court's Ruling in 'Students for Fair Admissions' and Its Impact on DEI Initiatives in the Workplace
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1The Pusillanimous Press
- 2Contract Lifecycle Management Company ContractPodAi Unveils Leah Drive
- 3'Great News' for Businesses? Judge Halts Transparency Mandate
- 4Consilio Announces ‘Native AI Review,’ Expanding Its Gen AI E-Discovery Offerings
- 5Federal Judge Hits US With $227,000 Sanction for Discovery Misconduct
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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