personal injury law firm Call now (510) 944-0102
personal injury law firm Call now (510) 944-0102
Construction Site Negligence
Abraham Degala was a well-respected demolition foreman working for a subcontractor at a construction site in Hunters Point, San Francisco, a high-crime area riddled with gang activity and gun violence.
Abe was violently attacked by masked thugs while on the job.
The attack resulted in severe damage to Abe’s neck and shoulder and he lost most of the function of his right arm.
Abe became permanently disabled. He was in constant pain. He was unable to work. He lost his career. He became depressed. He was plagued with anxiety so severe he was not able to leave his home.
This attack was all-the-more tragic because it was entirely foreseeable.
The contract between Abe’s employer, Janus, and the General Contractor, Cahill, clearly stated that Cahill would be responsible for providing appropriate jobsite security.
It was clear to Abe and other workers that security was not adequate. They complained to the property owner and general contractor in writing about the dangerous conditions and asked for additional security.
The owners put a sophisticated security camera system in place, but they did not hire additional security personnel. Then, there was a major failure: at the time of the attack, the cameras were not monitored.
We have a video record of the violent attack. There was no security on site to prevent the incident or help Abe.
Heinrich Law filed a complaint in 2018 against the property owner and general contractor for negligence and premises liability.
We completed numerous depositions and were confident that we had a solid case.
In 2020 the defense initiated preliminary discussions to settle the case for a small amount. However, in advance of discussing a settlement, the two defendants announced their plans to file Motions for Summary Judgement based on the Privette doctrine.
The Privette doctrine stands for the premise that entities who hire subcontractors to work on construction site projects cannot be held responsible if a worker for one of the subcontractors is injured on the job site, unless an exception applies.
The stakes were high: we knew that if the presiding judge granted the Motions for Summary Judgement, the case would be dismissed, and Abe could be left with nothing.
The facts of this case were so egregious that we refused to entertain a small settlement.
Heinrich Law built Abe’s case on the Hooker exception to Privette. Hooker stands for the premise that if the hirer retains control over some portion of the work being performed by the subcontractor and exercises the control in a way that contributes to the injured worker’s incident, then the hirer can be held responsible.
Heinrich Law expected that the SF Superior Court Judge would understand our argument, as it was based on clear precedent, and would not grant the defendants Motions for Summary Judgement.
In March 2021, the Motions for Summary Judgement were heard in SF Superior Court. Shockingly – and as it later turned out, erroneously – the Judge granted both motions, throwing Mr. Degala’s case out of court.
We knew this decision was unfair and that we had to fight it.
Majorie Heinrich immediately contacted one of the best appellate lawyers in California, Alan Charles “Chuck” Dell’Ario. Here’s how Heinrich Law set up the case: “I have a horribly injured client who has lost his livelihood, will never work again, is in chronic pain, and has undergone multiple surgeries – all because the owner and general contractor refused to provide even a modicum of site security. Just as egregious, because the court granted the defendants MSJs, we didn’t get to present our case in court. Tell me, Chuck, we can get this crazy decision reversed on appeal?”
Chuck reviewed the case and said: “Let’s get this terrible decision reversed.”
Our appeal was based on the argument that there were, in fact, triable issues of fact – and that Abe’s story deserved to be heard in court. We argued that the critical questions a jury should answer at trial included:
We filed an appeal in July 2021 and Oral argument took place in November 2022.
In January of 2023, the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, announced its decision:
“Because we conclude there are triable issues of fact as to whether the site owner and general contractor are liable to Degala under a retained control theory, we shall reverse.”
Importantly, Degala v. John Stewart is now a published decision that can help other severely injured construction workers prevail in court against owners and general contractors.
Based on the appellate court decision, a new trial date was set.
In anticipation of trying the case to verdict, Heinrich Law asked Altair Law to help try the case, which they agreed to do.
Simultaneously with fine tuning our trial preparation, all sides agreed to try to resolve the dispute through mediation.
The mediator recommended a $6 million settlement, which both sides agreed to, only 48 hours before trial was scheduled to begin.
Abe Degala and his family now have justice and the money necessary to begin putting their lives back together.
If you have been seriously injured on a construction site or other premises where you believe the owner or property manager has been negligent, please contact us. The consultation is free to you.