re: Louisiana Scaffold Builder wins $411 million Verdict. Largest in Louisiana History.

quote:

---

which will also be minus the 1/3 pocketed by attorneys

---

Unless he fixed the percentage, It'll be 50% by the time they get all their fees added up.

quote:

---

Terrible for Jose'.

In 1983, I was working on a scaffolding crew on Waterford III construction. I was put on a crew with a guy named Mike Hill who the job foreman described exactly the same as the dude in the article.

I was lucky as the foreman pulled me aside and told me never to work directly below this dude as he constantly dropped tools and was prone to doing idiot things. He also told me never take my hard hat off, ever!

Luckily, I managed to make it through the summer job without incident.

---

One of, if not the single most dangerous jobs on a construction site or an operating plant is scaffold building. This is why companies exist who do nothing but build scaffold.....they assume all of the risk and many plants and sites will not allow anyone without a stellar track record building scaffolds on their property. Its basically climbing on and clamping together pipes that are not fixed in place until you are done. Its damned dangerous. Even building masonry scaffolding (sectioned scaffolding or portable scaffolding) is dangerous. A sizeable portion of any adequate hazard analysis process will include trying to find a way to avoid working at heights from scaffolding, not because working from scaffolding is any more dangerous than any elevated platform, but because erecting scaffolding is incredible dangerous.

quote:

---

One of, if not the single most dangerous jobs on a construction site or an operating plant is scaffold building.

---

It's a damn shame that they are the lowest paid contractors on the site. They are the first craft needed for a turnaround and then are usually the last ones to leave the site after the turnaround is over.

I worked for Brock at their Baton Rouge office years ago and was made aware of several incidents that took place and was never reported.

quote:

---

quote:
And people wonder why businesses won't come here.


Yeah what's a dead, or even worse maimed, employee here and there when jobs are at stake. Ought to just tell employers that as long as they don't kill more than 10% of their workforce a year or cripple more than 5% they will face NO reprisal when the inevitable happens.

---

Don't be stupid.

Ignoring whether this case was even proper because of workers comp exclusivity, the damage amount is retardedly high. No one is saying the guy isn't hurt and wasnt deserving of compensation for his injuries.

quote:

---

I would give almost all of it to charity

---

You coming out of pocket for literal brain surgery?

quote:

---

Don't be stupid.

Ignoring whether this case was even proper because of workers comp exclusivity, the damage amount is retardedly high. No one is saying the guy isn't hurt and wasnt deserving of compensation for his injuries.

---

I would posit that the people on the Jury and the Judge are probably the most informed people involved other than the attorney's and the plaintiff. I would also posit that of that group only the defendant's and their gang of attorneys are in a position to complain.....anyone is entitled to an opinion but they are akin to assholes, everyone has one and most smell.

The defendant should have had adequate representation....if they did not that is no one's fault but their own. Their legal team most likely informed them of the risks they faced...had they failed to do so they were remiss and the client has recourse. In all likelihood the defendant arrogantly thought they could bully the plaintiff into submission and face very few if any damages. They grossly miscalculated. Presumably they are in business in the state the case was tried in....they should have known the risks....if they did not, again, that is on them and them alone. A further limit of exposure for employees beyond that ample protection already in place in the form of workers compensation is about as intrusive into private affairs as the state could possibly get...as bad or worse than sodomy laws.....

quote:

---

Their legal team most likely informed them of the risks they faced...had they failed to do so they were remiss and the client has recourse. In all likelihood the defendant arrogantly thought they could bully the plaintiff into submission and face very few if any damages. They grossly miscalculated.

---

But all that is a moot point if it falls under the worker's compensation regime. I'm not saying it does or it does not. Like you, I don't know all of the facts. And again it's a high burden for a plaintiff to overcome. If plaintiff did overcome that burden, no doubt the general damages award will be reduced by the trial court on JNOV or by the appellate court. No matter how unsympathetic the defendant is, there are no punitive damages allowed...only compensatory damages. No doubt the victim should be compensated for his injuries (whether in workers' comp or in tort), but the damage award cannot be used to punish the defendant.

quote:

---

but because erecting scaffolding is incredible dangerous.

---

It really is. Working on them is a risk as well.
The worst case I heard about when I was in the plant industry was an accident that happened in south Texas somewhere along the water.
The scaffolding fell over into the water and two guys drowned because they were tethered to the scaffold and had on tool belts.

quote:

---

But all that is a moot point if it falls under the worker's compensation regime. I'm not saying it does or it does not. Like you, I don't know all of the facts. And again it's a high burden for a plaintiff to overcome. If plaintiff did overcome that burden, no doubt the general damages award will be reduced by the trial court on JNOV or by the appellate court. No matter how unsympathetic the defendant is, there are no punitive damages allowed...only compensatory damages. No doubt the victim should be compensated for his injuries (whether in workers' comp or in tort), but the damage award cannot be used to punish the defendant.

---

So there is no need to further reduce the ability of someone damaged to seek redress if this is the case....its already done. The plaintiff will have to settle if they are to ever see any of their actual damages paid. In that case it is a win win situation...the plaintiff is made as whole as the law allows and the defendant is not subject to the vagaries of a jury BUT others in the industry will see what could happen IF the law did not favor the defendant and may be more careful less the laws change and expose them to the actual risk and not that which is limited by the state.