Roof Hatch Injury at Popular Mall
Many times dangerous conditions or negligent conduct could be easily avoided if a defendant did not put profits above safety. /p>
As part of a continuing series of articles on the Lewitt Hackman Personal Injury Blog, Lewitt Hackman attorneys will identify dangerous conditions or conduct from cases we have handled in the past, and how the conditions or conduct could have been avoided. Below is such a case.
A Dangerous Roof Hatch – The Problem
Our 20 year old client was working for a theatre complex at a popular local mall. One day he was instructed by his boss to escort a security guard to the roof so he could provide access for an air conditioning service worker.
The only way to the roof was to climb a 24 foot steel wall ladder to the top, where he then had to unlock the roof hatch and exit the hatch onto the roof. Our client successfully climbed the ladder and unlocked the hatch.
Next came the difficult part. The ladder stopped at the level of the roof. Typically, a ladder is required to extend approximately three feet above the level of a landing to allow the person climbing the ladder to get his or her whole body above the level of a landing and then safely step off.
This is a photo of the roof hatch depicting this problem:
Because the ladder stopped at the level of the roof, our client had to use his arms to try to pull himself out of the hatch and onto the roof. Unfortunately, our client could not do so and he fell 24 feet straight down. He shattered his leg, and eventually underwent a total of seven surgeries on his knee and ankle.
The Solution – Installing Safe Ladder Extensions or Rails
The builders of the mall could not extend the actual ladder three feet above the roof because the hatch would not be able to close. However, there were several other inexpensive solutions to this problem.
At the time the building was designed, there were several items that could have been attached to the outside of the hatch to act as a ladder extension or hand rail to assist a climber safely onto the roof. One was even aptly sold under the name of “Save a Life Ladder Extension.” Below is a photograph of one of these possible solutions:
At the time the building was constructed, there was a possible conflict between the federal and state regulations in terms of requiring an extension above the landing on the roof. However, through thorough investigation and discovery, our office tracked down all prior versions of the specifications manual. An early version of the manual included just such an extension.
In an apparent attempt to save costs, the extensions were removed from the final design specifications. Essentially our client suffered severe injuries because a company wanted to save a few hundred dollars.
Fortunately for our client, we successfully resolved the case prior to trial. He received compensation for his past medical expenses and loss of wages, as well as for his future medical care. This was just another example of a company putting profits ahead of safety.
David B. Bobrosky is a Los Angeles Injury Attorney and Shareholder at Our Firm. You may reach him by e-mail: email@example.com.