Ironworker Paralyzed When Mall Demolition Overhang Gave Way Settles for $4 Million

The demolition of a Raleigh mall called for stripping out an elevated walkway, and a 41-year-old ironworker drew the job of cutting it apart. A metal overhang ran along the walkway, anchored to the building by steel beams. His task was to cut openings in the overhang so a crane could reach in and lift the beams free. He finished a cut, then stepped across the section he had just removed to reach the ladder he needed to climb down.

That step put his weight near the weakened edge. A portion of the overhang collapsed under him. He fell through the opening and landed on his back.

The fall caused a spinal cord injury, and he was left paraplegic. He was 41 at the time.

The general contractor's own records became the center of the case. Safety reports filed for the project showed boxes checked for fall protection, the kind of arrest system meant to catch a worker before he hits the ground. Ben Whitley of the Whitley Law Firm, who represented the injured man with co-counsel Doug, Noah, and Melissa Abrams of Abrams & Abrams, told North Carolina Lawyers Weekly that the paperwork did not match the worksite. None of the items checked off as provided were actually present where the man was working. As Whitley put it, "if the general contractor had had the proper safety equipment and fall arrest system in place, the injury would not have happened." The plaintiff's team brought in an accident reconstructionist, an economist, and a life care planner to put numbers to a lifetime of care.

The case nearly stalled. During the litigation the general contractor filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, which froze the claim. Whitley's side petitioned the bankruptcy court to lift the automatic stay, and the judge agreed, letting the suit move forward.

The two sides met for mediation on September 16, 2014, with Ron Perkinson of Sanford as mediator. They settled for $4 million, just over a month before trial was set to begin in Wake County Superior Court. The agreement is confidential, so the contractor's name and the precise terms were not made public. Because the matter resolved by settlement rather than verdict, there was no appeal and no reduction of the amount.