X hits on this document

PDF document

$19,550,157 VERDICT – Product Liability – Asbestos Expsoure – Carpenter contracts ... - page 12 / 32





12 / 32



The plaintiff contended that she observed that the construction plates had a welded logo “CE” on them as she was being removed from the scene. The plain- tiff further maintained that photos from the scene the day after the accident confirmed that the utility’s logo was on the construction plates.

The utility settled during the liability trial for $140,000. The jury found the host driver 75% negligent and the utility 25% negligent. The case against the driver then settled for the $25,000 policy limits.


The plaintiff had suffered a back injury some years earlier and was receiving treatment for a lumbar and cervical bulge. The plaintiff contended that the sub- ject incident caused a compression fracture at C-5, an aggravation of the prior condition and several ad- ditional bulges in both the cervical and lumbar areas. The plaintiff contended that she will permanently suf- fer particularly extensive pain and limitations.

Woodruff vs. Con-Ed, et al. Index no. 3867/07; Judge David Vaughn, 09-14-11.

Attorney for plaintiff: Phillip P. Nikolis of Pugatch & Nikolis in Garden City, NY.



Contract – Plaintiff airline brings action for common law contribution and contractual indemnification against defendant service company – Case regards underlying incident of service company employee waiting on tarmac being struck and killed by vehicle driven by airline employee.

U.S. District Court, Eastern District of NY

the incident. The service company contended that it should not be liable for contractual indemnification unless the airline was free of fault. The service com- pany maintained that reasonable minds could not so find and that the action should be dismissed. The air- line also contended, on its common law contribution claim, that the service company breached its com- mon law duty to provide adequate training to the worker, leading to her death.

This action involved a plaintiff airline, an airline carrier, and a defendant service company that was contracted to clean the airline’s planes, including those which were parked at a remote lot. The underlying incident giving rise to this case occurred during the midnight shift and during this period, airline mechanics would provide access to the plane for the defendant’s cleaning workers. A cleaning worker employed by the service company was struck and killed by a vehicle driven by an airline worker as the cleaning worker was waiting to be picked up and the litigation relating to the underlying incident is pending.

The service company denied that it had a common law duty to train/supervise the worker in road safety, and that the service company’s motion should be granted.

The court concurred with the service company and granted its motion for summary judgment.


Medina vs. Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. ARAMARK Aviation Services. Index no. 09-CV-4018 (NGG) (LB); Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis, 08-16-11.

The plaintiff airline contended that it was entitled to contractual indemnification and common law contri- bution from the service company for any liability for

Attorney for defendant: Frank D. Thompson, II of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP in New York, NY.


Contract – Plaintiff home buyer contends defendant agrees to remediate mold from house and fails to do so.

moving in, she ascertained that the house was filled with mold, and that the defendant failed to remediate it.

Rockland County, NY

The plaintiff, a home purchaser, contended that she asked the defendant, her friend who was associated with a real estate management company, to have the house repaired and made habitable. The plaintiff contended that after

The defendant denied that there was a contract to remediate mold. The defendant contended that the agreement called for the plaintiff to pay $150,000 for other work, including roofing work and ridding the pre- mises of vermin. The defendant maintained that the plaintiff only paid $15,000 for this non-mold work.

Volume 28, Issue 9, September 2011

Subscribe Now

Document info
Document views115
Page views115
Page last viewedMon Jan 23 15:32:48 UTC 2017