A trio of judges belonging to the Second US Circuit Court of Appeals for the state of New York has affirmed this past May a ruling by the US District Court of the South District of New York State that requires an upstate New York business, Bryan’s Home Improvement Corporation, to pay out eight million dollars in damages to a contractual employee after he was injured by electrical shock and a subsequent fall off a ladder. The case is referred to as Rivera vs Home Depot.
It all started back in August of 2015, when Daniel Rivera, an employee of Bryan’s Home Improvement Corporation, which is based out of Atlanta, Georgia, was remodeling a Home Depot store in upstate New York — where he sustained serious and permanent injury will in the course of his contracted remodeling activities in the store. He immediately started searching on Google for things such as personal injury lawyer near me.
Rivera then filed a lawsuit claiming personal injury against the Home Depot store. His allegation was the Home Depot company was supposed to provide competent construction management guidance in relation to the work he was doing when the incident occurred. His complaint also contended that the company, in the role of general contractor for that particular project, was completely responsible for providing a safe work environment for all workers, not excepting Mr. Rivera, while at work on said project.
His attorney claimed that Home Depot was careless, negligent, and clearly in violation of the New York State Labor Laws in not providing him with a safe work environment, which in turn was the cause of injuries that were life-threatening to Mr. Rivera, in the words of the filed formal complaint.
The jury gave an award of eight million dollars for indemnification to be paid through Bryan’s Home Improvement.
The decision was appealed by Bryan’s. Their counterclaim was that the local court was mistaken when they found for Home Depot’s claim concerning contractual indemnification and common law — their argument was an employer like Bryan’s should only be liable to a 3rd party for remuneration if and when the employee concern has suffered a serious and/or life-threatening injury.
This was overturned because the injuries occurred during a prior contractual engagement.