By Jennifer Riso
A renovation project at Texas A&M’s football stadium, Kyle Field, which will expand seating to make the stadium the largest in the Southeastern Conference, has led to an unfortunate and untimely fatality. Twenty-eight year old construction worker, Angel Garcia, fell four stories to his death while working on the stadium’s renovation.
On December 3, 2013, Garcia was operating machinery to catch falling concrete debris from overhead construction when a larger-than-normal piece of concrete caused the equipment to lose control, ultimately ejecting Garcia from the machinery. Reports state that Garcia landed in a pile of rubble, back first, suffering massive trauma to his torso and head. However, he remained conscious at the worksite. Garcia was transported to St. Joseph Hospital where he was pronounced dead from his injuries.
Garcia is survived by his mother and two minor children, who filed a $1 million lawsuit in district court (Garcia v. J.T. Vaughn Construction, LLC) against the construction companies involved. Garcia’s family is suing for their pecuniary losses, including loss of care, maintenance, support, etc., for mental anguish and grief, for loss of society and damage to the mother-son relationship, for loss of parental consortium for both the father-daughter and the father-son relationship, for loss of monetary support, and for loss if inheritance. Moreover, the lawsuit requests survival damages to Garcia’s estate for past wages and loss of future income, funeral expenses, medical expenses, and for his state of being prior to his death, including pain and suffering, mental anguish, physical incapacity, and disfigurement. The complaint states that the plaintiffs will seek a maximum of $100 Million.
To prevail on a claim for negligence, the plaintiff must show that the defendants owed the plaintiff a duty, that duty was breached, and that damages to the defendant were proximately caused by the breach. Here, the plaintiffs claim negligence against defendants Vaughn Construction, Manhattan Construction, Manhattan | Vaughn, JVP, Texas Curb Cut, Inc., and Texas Cutting & Coring Group, Inc.
The complaint states that these the defendants breached their duties and were negligent in the following ways: (1) failing to provide and maintain a safe workplace; (2) failing to properly plan and engineer a safe demolition process; (3) failing to adequately coordinate the work of contractors to ensure a safe work place; (4) failing to adequately monitor and test the structural integrity of the concrete; (5) failing to test the structural integrity of the barrier on the fourth floor; (6) failing to provide an adequate barrier for the work being done; (7) failing to properly train and supervise workers; (8) failing to provide adequate fall protection to Garcia; (9) failing to abide by Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations; (10) failing to provide or require use of OSHA mandated safety equipment on the job site; (11) failing to provide appropriate equipment for the task assigned to Garcia; (12) failing to have adequate safety policies and procedures in place; (13) failing to properly warn Garcia of the dangers associated with the work he was doing; (14) failing to properly warn Garcia of the dangers of the work being performed by other contractors in the area; and (15) failing to promulgate and enforce minimum safety standards or operational procedures.
The complaint further alleges a claim for gross negligence against Lindamood Demolition, Garcia’s employer, stating that the defendant breached its continuous and non-delegable duties by (1) failing to provide a safe workplace, (2) failing to provide adequate safety equipment and training; and (3) failing to ensure Garcia was assisted by adequately trained and competent laborers. The complaint further asserts that the defendant’s conduct “illustrates not only an attitude of conscious indifference for the rights, safety and welfare of others, but also shows Defendant’s actual and subjective awareness of the dangers of such conduct.”
While it is likely that the defendants will file a motion to dismiss, it is unlikely the motion will be granted as the complaint alleges all elements for negligence.
Reports claim that both Lindamood and Manhattan Construction have previously received OSHA citations for stadium construction concerns, such as failure to perform pre-demolition safety inspections.
Finally, the complaint alleges that the defendants are liable for the torts committed by their employees during the course and scope of their employment under the doctrine of respondeat superior. Under the doctrine, an employer may be held liable when the employer is (1) acting on behalf of the employer; (2) to benefit the employer; and (3) within the scope of the agent’s authority. Thus, if an employee of a construction company is found to be liable for negligence, the company may be held liable to Garcia for his fatal injuries.
Texas A&M has not been named a defendant in this case.
