The degree of injury depends on the strength of the electrical current, the length of exposure, the person’s state of health, and the speed and adequacy of treatment. The human body is a good conductor of electricity, and direct contact with electrical current can be fatal. Sometimes the injuries from an electrical accident are easily visible, such as a large burn injury or a charred limb. Other times, the visible electrical burns are minimal. But we can’t see with the naked eye the tremendous damage the electricity may have done to the heart, muscles, bodily organs, or the brain. The victim of an electrical accident may suffer lifelong physical and mental injuries.

There are three main forms of electrical current (not including lightning): (1) low-voltage alternating current (household current); (2) high-voltage alternating current; and (3) high-voltage direct current (industrial power plants and lightning). High-voltage electrical current tends to cause much more serious injuries than low-voltage electrical current. Electrical current that does not enter the body cause a burn to the skin or a mild shock. Serious injuries occur when the electrical current enters the body, passes through organs, and exits from another location.

Each category may be subclassified depending on whether the victim required cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). The electrical current may result in injury or death by affecting the electrical conduction of muscles and nerves, causing severe abnormal rhythms in the heart and brain, or by producing internal and external electrical burns both by heating (thermal burns) and by poration (producing holes in cell membranes) of the cellular membranes.

Electrical current passing through the brain—whether low-voltage or high-voltage circuits—produces unconsciousness instantly and directly because of its effects on the brain’s neurons. Alternating current (AC) can produce the serious and often deadly condition of ventricular fibrillation of the left ventricle of the heart if the path of the current includes going through the chest. This may occur when the current flows from arm to arm, arm to leg, or head to arm or leg.

If the electrical current has caused the heart to go into left ventricular fibrillation, it is critical that CPR be administered immediately or that a defibrillator machine be used to shock the heart back into normal rhythm. If a person who has been in contact with an electrical current that has caused his or her heart to go into left ventricular fibrillation, if appropriate life-saving measures are not taken in the first four to five minutes, the victim will die. If emergency medical technicians or CPR has been timely and successfully administered, the victim may completely recover, usually with no apparent injury. However, even if the victim is resuscitated, prolonged cardiac and/or respiratory arrest carries with it an increasing probability of permanent brain injury, persistent vegetative states, and brain death.

Low-voltage electrical injury with cardiac and/or respiratory arrest usually results in death at the scene of the accident. Low-voltage electrical injury without cardiac and/or respiratory arrest is most often encountered in children who bite extension cords. The burns of the child’s mouth are often severe and require extensive plastic surgery. However, damage to the infant’s internal organs is infrequent.

High-voltage alternating current electrical injuries generally do not result in cardiac and/or respiratory arrest, but have extensive injuries from burns and are at risk of acute and chronic problems. Electrical injuries from high-voltage circuits generally are much worse than they appear in the emergency room. The sizes of the entrance and exit wounds do not correlate with the extent of internal injury. For example, serious internal injuries can occur with small entrance and exit wounds. Conversely, large skin burns may occur without internal injury.

Direct current (DC) electrical injuries are generally observed in electrical train circuits, and are often the result of risk-taking behavior by young males.

The power company or other owner, installer, or maintainer of high-voltage wires has a legal obligation (a “duty”) to maintain its highly charged high tension wires at a height that does not endanger the normal use of the highway for travel or other proper purpose. Maintaining a highly-charged wire uninsulated where it could be touched by a hand reaching out to it from an upstairs window is negligence.

It is not necessary to come into direct contact with a high-voltage line to suffer an electrical burn. Electricity has the ability to “jump” up to ten feet; therefore people and equipment should keep at least ten feet away from high-voltage electrical lines. Because of the danger of electrocution in placing a boom within ten feet of a high-voltage line is not generally known or obvious, the manufacturer, distributor, or retailer must affix a warning on the equipment that warns of the danger in bringing the boom closer than ten feet or in direct contact with such power lines. Section 385(b) of the California Penal Code makes it a misdemeanor for any person, either personally or through an employee, to move any tool or equipment within six feet of a high-voltage overhead line.

Electrocution, by definition, is fatal, the cause attributed to electric shock. A wrongful death from electrocution can occur when a person comes in contact with an electrical circuit, such as a high-voltage power line. It can also come from improper insulation of the power line, cutting through an underground cable, or improper wiring which inadvertently electrifies a water source. The risk of electrical injury is greater in electrical workers, construction workers, boating, golfing, and children exposed to electrical outlets, cords, or devices.

Electrical accident injuries vary with the voltage of the conductor. The most dangerous conductors are the electric utility transmission lines, with very high voltage, sometimes over 100,000 volts. At such a high voltage, you do not have to actually come in contact with the conductor to be electrocuted. If you get close to such a high-voltage line, the electricity will arc over to complete the deadly circuit.

Over 20 percent of electrical injuries and electrocutions happen in the workpace. Injuries and deaths due to contact with electricity are more common among construction workers than any other group. Electrocution is one of the top-five leading causes of death in the construction industry. The accident may happen when the metal ladder, crane, scaffold, front-end loader, or conveyor they are using comes in contact with overhead power lines. The injured worker or the family of a deceased worker are usually entitled to receive worker’ compensation benefits for their injuries or their loved one’s death, but such benefits are usually insufficient to fully compensate the injured worker or the surviving family of a deceased worker for their losses.

Hence, when a construction worker has been electrocuted in an on-the-job accident, it is critical to determine whether someone other than the employer or a coworker was responsible for the accident. For instance, if the worker is using a defective drill that causes an electrical injury, it may be possible to sue the manufacturer, supplier, and retailer of the faulty drill without having to worry about limits on the amount of your recovery. If the injured or deceased worker was employed by a subcontractor, it may be possible to bring a negligence suit against the prime general contractor or another subcontractor if their or their employees’ carelessness created the dangerous condition that caused the electrical injuries or electrocution.

Construction workers can suffer an electrical injury or be electrocuted by a live wire above or beneath the ground, from various types of equipment they work with, coming into contact with electrical outlets, or the electric circuitry of a building may be faulty. Electrical burns and electrocution are risks that employees in many different sectors of the job market must deal with on a daily basis.

Consumers can suffer an electrical injury or be electrocuted by a defective product, a live power line, defective and dangerous household large appliances, and faulty and dangerous wiring and/or outlets in the home or apartment. Consumer products that we use every day without a thought can be the cause of an electrical injury, such as hair dryers, curling irons, microwave ovens, power tools, even vacuum cleaners with faulty or exposed wires.

Electric current can cause injury in three main ways:

• Cardiac arrest due to the electrical effect on the heart;

• Muscle, nerve, and tissue destruction from a current passing through the body;

• Thermal burns from contact with the electrical source.

  Symptoms of electrical accidents include:

• Unconsciousness, confusion, vertigo

• Bone Fractures

• Heart arrhythmias (irregular heartbeats, particularly ventricular fibrillation)

• Cardiac arrest (stopping of the heart from beating)

• Chest pain

• Kidney failure

• Fainting

• Headache

• Impaired swallowing, vision, or hearing

• Muscle contraction

• Muscular pain

• Numbness or tingling in the face, trunk, or arms and legs

• Respiratory distress or complete stopping of breathing

• Seizures

• Skin burns

There are two main safety standards concerning electric power and its wiring: (1) the National Electric Code, which sets minimum requirements for safe electricity inside of buildings, such as homes, businesses, and industrial locations, and (2) the National Electric Safety Code, which sets the minimum standards for safe electricity in the power lines and power transmission outside of buildings.

Severe trauma from the electrical and thermal mechanisms of injury can result in the need for victims to undergo multiple surgeries, including amputations. Other treatment for electrical injuries include heart monitoring (to detect abnormal heart rhythms, especially ventricular fibrillation), intravenous fluids, burn care measures, treatment of fractures, pain medication, and surgery for electrical burns. Disability from electrical injury can be related to the patient’s loss of physical abilities and/or the occurrence of neurological, psychological, and psychiatric injuries.

If you have been injured or a loved one killed in an electrical accident, you should contact an experienced personal injury law firm as soon as possible. You only have a limited time to sue, and that time is shortened if the wrongdoer is a public entity, such as in cases where the offender was the state, or a county or city. If the person who injured you was a public employee, it is generally necessary to file a claim for damages with the proper governmental agency within six months of the date of the incident. An experienced personal injury attorney will know how and where to file this claim on your behalf.

It is also important to contact an experienced personal injury law firm as soon as possible after the accident, as the law firm may want to send its own investigator to the scene of the accident to inspect and take pictures of the accident site and any dangerous condition that caused or contributed to the accident, especially before there are any changes to the condition. The attorney or his or her investigator will also want to talk to any witnesses to the accident while the facts are still fresh in their minds.

An experienced personal injury law firm can also help with seeing to it that you obtain appropriate and thorough medical care for your physical, emotional, and psychological injuries suffered as a result of the accident. They can also do everything possible to ensure that you obtain full compensation for your medical expenses, pain and suffering, mental anguish, property damage, lost wages, and all of your other injuries and damages.

Call now and talk to a lawyer for free:  888.222.8286

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

There are two broad types of construction site accidents: (1) accidents involving the construction workers themselves, and (2) accidents involving bystanders and passers-by.

Construction workers ordinarily cannot sue their own employers or coworkers for injuries they receive on the job, but instead are entitled to collect worker’s compensation benefits. These benefits are deemed the injured worker’s “exclusive remedy,” and worker’s compensation benefits are payable to the injured worker even if the employer or coworker who caused the injury or accident was not legally at fault (negligent). In fact, worker’s compensation benefits are available to the injured worker even where it was his or her own carelessness that caused the injury.  However, an injured worker can receive compensation for injuries caused by another party other than his/her employer.  

In most cases, however, worker’s compensation benefits usually are insufficient to compensate the injured employee (or the spouse and children of a worker killed in an on-the-job accident), as worker’s compensation benefits are considerably less than the monetary damages that the injured worker or his or her family could recover in a negligence lawsuit against a his or her employer or fellow employee if such person were careless (“negligent”) and caused the injured worker’s injuries.

There are several exceptions to the general rule that an injured party may not sue his or her employer or coworker for on-the-job injuries. The situations in which the injured worker can sue his or her employer directly include: where the employer does not have workers’ compensation insurance; where the employer removes or fails to install a “point of operation” safety guard on a power press; where the employer aggravates the employee’s injuries by fraudulently concealing the existence of the injury and its connection with the job; and where the employer deliberately injures the employee, that is, where the employer commits a “willful physical assault” on the employee.

An employee is barred from suing a fellow employee for injuries resulting from the fellow employee’s careless acts, unless the fellow employee was intoxicated at the time or the injuries are the result of the fellow employee’s “willful and unprovoked physical act of aggression.” A coworker can be held liable only if he or she had an intent to harm the injured employee. Where there is no evidence that the offending employee intended to harm his or her coworker, the injured worker can sue neither the employer nor the coworker. Thus, a flaring temper over the upkeep of an area of the workplace that led to a screaming fit between two employees, while unfortunate and unsettling, was not sufficient to state an act of aggression or assault outside the worker’s compensation system.

A “willful and unprovoked physical act of aggression” includes an intent to injure requirement. In one case, a supervisor held a gun to the employee’s head and threatened to blow his head off if the employee did not sign a termination notice and get off the hotel grounds. The Supreme Court of California determined that the very act of pulling a gun in the manner described and threatening to kill was intended to cause injury regardless of whether there was an intent to actually shoot. The Court stated that, under appropriate circumstances, clenching a fist or aiming a gun may be sufficient to convey a real, present, and apparent threat of physical injury. Although bodily contact is not necessary for a physical assault, the conduct must be the type that a reasonable person would perceive to be a real, present, and apparent threat of bodily harm.

A worker who suffers emotional or mental injuries that do not result in some type of physical injury or disability is not permitted to receive worker’s compensation benefits, nor is he or she permitted to sue his or her employer for such injuries. This may result in the inability of the injured employee to receive compensation for his or her emotional and mental injuries, resulting in a “wrong without a remedy.” The California Supreme Court has said of this result that “not every aggravation in normal employment life is compensable.”

Although the injured worker is generally prohibited from suing his or her own employer, the worker can sue others who have caused the harm. For instance, if another subcontractor’s employee’s carelessness (“negligence”) harms the worker, the injured worker can usually sue the other subcontractor without the restrictions on the amount of compensation that he or she would be able to recover under worker’s compensation benefits. (Of course, when an injured employee receives worker’s compensation benefits then sues another person for his or her injuries and collects a settlement or award of money, the worker’s compensation system ordinarily must be reimbursed for the money it paid.)

If the worker is a subcontractor or employee of a subcontractor and is injured by an unsafe condition on the construction site, the injured worker may be able to sue the prime general contractor for his or her injuries. The prime contractor has a legal obligation (“duty”) to ensure a safe workplace for all workers, whether they be the prime contractor’s own employees (who generally would be limited to receiving worker’s compensation benefits) or its subcontractors and their employees (who normally would not be limited to worker’s compensation if the injury resulted from the negligence of the prime contractor or one of its employees).

If the worker is injured because of a defective product—be it a faulty nail gun, ladder, blowtorch, etc.—the injured worker can sue the product’s manufacturer, distributor, and retailer in a product liability case without the workers’ compensation limitations on the amount of money the injured worker can receive. If the architect or engineer drew up defective plans that pose an unreasonable danger of injury or death to the construction workers, an injured worker may be able to sue the architect or engineer for his or her injuries and associated damages.

A prime contractor ordinarily is not liable for injuries caused by the carelessness (“negligence”) of its independent subcontractors, as the prime general contractor ordinarily lacks the right of control over the independent subcontractor’s employees. However, in some cases the general contractor (or owner) can be held liable for injuries to a subcontractor’s employees. For instance, a general contractor can be held responsible for the acts of an independent contractor and its employees where the general contractor retained control of the work or area involved; where the general contractor negligently hired, supervised, or retained an incompetent subcontractor; where the general contractor furnished the subcontractor with negligently designed or prepared plans or specifications; or where the general contractor provided the subcontractor with faulty equipment that injured the subcontractor’s employee. Also, if the task is highly dangerous and likely to cause serious injury, the prime contractor may have the duty to ensure that the work is carried out carefully and cannot delegate responsibility for the safe performance of the work to another.

Persons who are not working on the construction site (such as ordinary people who are walking or driving by the construction site) are entitled to sue the owner and contractor and/or subcontractor for their carelessness negligence that causes injury to them. For instance, if a pedestrian is walking on a public sidewalk adjacent to a construction site and is injured by flying debris coming from the construction site, he or she may be able to sue the owner and the contractor whose employee was responsible for the flying debris. Similarly, if a crane fails and falls to the ground, the injured persons may well be able to sue the owner/operator of the crane for negligence. If a bystander has been killed by a crane (or other industrial accident), his or her survivors (“heirs”) have the right to sue the owner and operator of the crane, and in many cases the crane’s manufacturer as well.

If a machine or piece equipment was defective and caused injury to the employee using it, in many cases the manufacturer and distributor of the product can also be held monetarily responsible (“liable”) for any and all expenses related to the accident under the laws of product liability. Likewise, if a bystander or passerby was injured or killed by a defective product used in construction, the manufacturer, distributor, and retailer of the machine or piece of equipment can be held liable under the laws of products liability for the damages or deaths resulting from its defective and dangerous product.

If you have been injured or a loved one killed in an accident involving a construction site accident, you should contact an experienced personal injury law firm as soon as possible. The law firm will usually want to send an investigator to the scene of the accident to inspect and take pictures of the accident site and any dangerous condition that caused or contributed to the accident before conditions change or the construction company repairs them. The attorney or his or her investigator will also want to talk to any witnesses to the accident while the facts are still fresh in their minds.

If the construction work that injured you or killed your loved one was being done by employees of a public entity, such as the state or a county or city or one of its agencies, it is generally necessary to file a claim for damages with the proper governmental agency within six months of the date of the incident, so you must act quickly in obtaining competent legal representation. An experienced personal injury attorney will know how and where to file this claim on your behalf.

An experienced personal injury attorney can also help with seeing to it that you receive a thorough physical and mental examination and treatment for any injuries you may have sustained in the accident. An experienced personal injury law firm can see to it that you obtain full compensation for your medical expenses, pain and suffering, mental anguish, property damage, lost wages, vocational rehabilitation, lost earning capacity, costs of retraining you to do a different job if you are unable to return to return to your old job because of your injuries, if you are permanently disabled and unable to return to any kind of meaningful work, and all of your other injuries and damages, physical, emotional, and mental.  Call now and speak with a lawyer for free about your case 415.738.7672

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Generally, an employer is “vicariously liable” for the injuries and property damage that its employees cause during the course and scope of their employment. For instance, if the driver of a delivery truck owned by Acme Corporation causes an accident on his way to or from making a delivery, Acme Corporation is liable for the resulting injuries, deaths, and property damage.

The rule of vicarious liability was based upon the fact that the employer had control over its employees’ conduct and therefore it was fair to hold the employer legally responsible (“liable”) for the employee’s careless (“negligent”) acts that caused injury or damage. Today, the policy is based upon the policy rule that requiring an employer to pay for the wrongful conduct of its employees is a policy rule that involves the allocation of risk in which the burden is placed on the employer as a required cost of doing business. The employer is able to spread its risk through prices, rates, or the costs of liability insurance among its customers. Thus, the employer’s liability now extends beyond its actual or possible control of its employees to injuries and damage that are inherent in or created by the business.

Generally speaking, the employer is responsible for the employee’s wrongful conduct only if the employer was acting within the “scope and course” of his or her employment. That used to require that the activity benefit the employer or the employer had the right to control the employee’s conduct while performing the activity. Today, the determination of whether an employee was acting within the scope of his or her employment at the time he or she committed the wrongful act turns on whether or not (1) the act was either required or incidental to the employee’s duties, or (2) the employer could have reasonably anticipated (that it was “foreseeable”) the employee’s misconduct as an outgrowth of the employee’s duties.

“Foreseeability” merely means that, in the context of the particular business, an employee’s conduct is not so unusual or startling that it would be seem unfair to include the injuries or damages it causes among other costs of doing business. The employer is liable for its employee’s wrongful conduct if the conduct may fairly be said to be characteristic of, typical of, or broadly incidental to the employer’s activities. It is no longer necessary to prove that the employee was intending to benefit the employer at the time he or she committed the accident or did the wrongful act complained of.

In determining whether the employee was acting within the scope of his or her employment at the time of the incident, factors considered include the intent of the employee, the nature, time and place of his or her wrongful conduct, the employee’s actual or implied authority, the work the employee was hired to perform, the incidental acts the employer reasonably could have expected the employee would do, and the amount of freedom given the employee in performing his or her job duties.

In some cases, a question arises as to whether the employee deviated so much from his job that it would not be fair to hold the employer responsible for any and all resulting injuries and damages. The fact that an employee, at the time of the incident, was not engaging in the ultimate goal or his or her employment does not necessarily mean the employer is off the hook. Acts that are necessary to the comfort, convenience, health, and welfare of the employee while at the work or on the job, though strictly personal to the employee and not acts of service to the employer, do not take the employee outside the scope of his employment. Where the employee combines his own business with that of his or her employer, the courts generally do not draw a fine line as to exactly whose business the employee was attending at the time of the accident and therefore hold the employer liable for all of the damages.

However, when an employee, for entirely personal purposes, departs from the employer’s business, the question become whether the departure was minor or substantial. Minor deviations from the employer’s business are considered foreseeable and thus the employer is vicariously liable for any harm caused by the employee’s careless conduct during such time. If, however, the departure is major, or substantial, the departure is considered unforeseeable and the employer cannot be held vicariously liable. Every case is different and considered on its own set of facts.

The so-called “going and coming” rule generally provides that an employer is not liable for accidents of its employees while they are going to work or coming home, i.e,, while they are commuting to and from the job. Under this rule, the employee’s service to the employer begins when he or she arrives at the place of employment, when he or she crosses over the “premises line.” There are a number of exceptions to this rule. For instance, if the employer asks the employee to pick up a part or do an errand on his or her way to work or on the way home, the employer can be held liable for the injuries and damages caused by the employee’s negligence that causes an accident.

The going-and-coming rule also does not apply if the employee is required to use his or her vehicle while on the job, such as to go meet with clients or go from one of the employer’s store to another. The employer is financially responsible for accidents caused by the employee while commuting if the employee’s home qualifies as a “second jobsite,” which generally means that the employer requires the employee to work at home as a condition of his or her employment. The fact that an employee voluntarily takes work home to do usually is not in and of itself sufficient to meet the “second jobsite” test.

A number of cases involve the liability of an employer for injuries caused by a drunk employee driving home after becoming intoxicated on alcoholic beverages supplied by the employer. If the employer furnished the liquor, it may be held vicariously liable for injuries caused by the employee on his or her home, despite the fact that under normal circumstances (i.e., when the employee is driving home sober), the going and coming rule would ordinarily prohibit the employer from being held vicariously liable. Where an employee becomes intoxicated at his or her employer’s Christmas or other party, which the employee was required or expected to attend, and gets into an accident while driving home, the employer is liable to persons injured or killed in the accident.

While the vicarious liability of an employer for an employee’s careless act usually involves ordinary carelessness, or negligence, in appropriate cases the employer can be held vicariously liable for an intentional assault by the employee. The test used to determine whether the employer can be held liable in such a situation is this: If the assault was motivated by personal malice and does not arise out of the employment, the employer is not vicariously liable; otherwise, if the assault does arise out of the employment, the employer is vicariously liable.

Where an injury or death is intentionally inflicted, in addition to the usual elements of damages—medical expenses, pain and suffering, lost wages, property damage, and the like—“punitive damages” may be recovered to punish the wrongdoer for having committed the assault and to deter him (and serve as an example to others) not to repeat such conduct. When an employer can be held vicariously liable for the employee’s intentionally wrongful acts, it can be held liable for the usual types of monetary damages involved (i.e., medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering, property damage, etc.). However, the employer usually cannot be ordered to pay the punitive damages. In order for the employer to be required to pay punitive damages for an employee’s intentional misconduct, the employer must itself have been independently at fault.

In some cases, the employer can be held directly liable (rather than vicariously liable) for its own fault (“negligence”) in hiring, training, supervising, or retaining an employee. For instance, if the employee has caused several accidents on the job because he or she was under the influence of alcohol or drugs, the employer may have an independent duty to fire that employee to protect others. The employer may be negligent in hiring an employee. For example, suppose a janitor or teacher at a day care center or preschool molests one or more of the children, or a priest at a church molests altar boys. The employer may be held independently liable for its negligence in failing to conduct a thorough background check on the prospective employee before he or she was hired, which check would have revealed previous cases or instances of child molestation or other criminal conduct involving the person.

If you have been injured or a loved one killed in an accident involving another person’s employee, you should contact an experienced personal injury law firm as soon as possible. If the employee worked for the state, city, county or other public entity, you need to be aware that it is generally necessary to file a claim for damages with the proper governmental agency within six months of the date of the incident. An experienced personal injury attorney will know how and where to file this claim on your behalf.

It is also important to contact an experienced personal injury as soon as possible after the accident, as the attorney may want to send his or her investigator to the scene of the accident to inspect and take pictures of the accident site and any dangerous condition that caused of contributed to the accident. The attorney or his or her investigator will also want to talk to any witnesses to the accident while the facts are still fresh in their minds.

An experienced personal injury attorney can also help with seeing to it that you obtain proper and thorough medical care for your physical and emotional injuries suffered as a result of the accident. An experienced personal injury law firm can work to get you full compensation for your medical expenses, pain and suffering, mental anguish, property damage, lost wages, and all of your other injuries and damages.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites