By Teresa Stepzinski
BRUNSWICK – The Georgia Supreme Court has reversed a Court of Appeals decision and ruled in favor of two companies that a Savannah woman sued over her brother's death in a crash on Interstate 95 in Glynn County.
At issue was whether the woman's expert witness was qualified to testify in the matter under standards set by state law and a precedent-setting 1993 U.S. Supreme Court case.
In an unanimous opinion Monday, the state Supreme Court said Superior Court Judge Stephen Scarlett was right and the appeals court was wrong.
Scarlett ruled correctly when he determined the family's witness was not an expert in the matter. Therefore, Scarlett was right to grant the companies' motion for a summary judgment in their favor, the justices said.
Johnny Hamilton, 19, of Garden City was killed and his brother, Justin Hamilton, and their sister, Lakeisha Hamilton-King, were injured when a van struck them in a chain-reaction collision April 8, 2003, on I-95 at the Little Satilla River Bridge, which was being widened.
The three had gotten out of their car after it struck a concrete bridge guardrail when Hamilton-King attempted to avoid another car that drifted into her lane. There was no shoulder. As they stood close to the bridge barrier, the three were hit by the van.
The surviving siblings sued the HNTB Georgia Inc., the designer of the bridge-widening project. They also sued Plant Improvement Co., also known as Seaboard Construction Co., which was the prime contractor for the widening of nearly 7 miles of I-95 including the bridge.
They claimed the companies were negligent in designing the traffic control plan for the construction work, and in failing to provide proper lighting and signs in the work area. The siblings offered a civil engineer, Jerome Thomas, as an expert witness, to testify in support of their claim.
The companies asserted Thomas was not an expert under the qualifications set by state law and federal precedent. His testimony was inadmissible, they argued, because he did not present any evidence that bridge construction projects without shoulders and lighting were "inherently defective,'' the companies argued.
Scarlett agreed, and excluded the testimony. Without admissible expert testimony, "there was no issue of fact to be decided by a jury," Scarlett said in ruling for the companies.
The siblings appealed Scarlett's decision, and won a reversal from the Court of Appeals. The companies then appealed it to the Supreme Court, which reversed the lower court.
Reposted to Pro17 Engineering at http://www.pro17engineering.com/services/expert-witness/
Construction Safety Regulations
Construction site safety should be the number one goal of general contractors, subcontractors and employees. There are several resources that need to be utilized before preparing to start a construction project. All employer's and employee's are regulated by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and American National Standards Institute (ANSI). If more employers and employees utilized the regulations that are available a majority of construction accidents could be avoided. OSHA 1926.20(b) discusses accident prevention responsibilities. It is the responsibility of the employer to implement programs and verify employees are following applicable rules. It is also regulated that competent persons utilized by the general contractor or subcontractor must provide inspections to make sure the construction project is safe at all times. If the employer, whether contractor or subcontractor, fails to follow the regulations this could lead to accidents or OSHA citations. The general contractor and the subcontractor depending on the agreement can share the duties on the construction project. When the general contractor makes an agreement with a subcontractor, the general contractor must assume all responsibilities as an employer under OSHA regulations. As far as a subcontractor, he or she is responsible for any applicable OSHA standards. The general contractor will be responsible for the entire site and the subcontractor would be liable for any agreed part of the contract. The subcontractor and the general contractor would be jointly responsible for the subcontractor's work. The general contractor and subcontractor are required to provide personal protective equipment for employees that are exposed to hazards at the site. If a general contractor or subcontractor does not provide or require employees to use the personal protective equipment he or she may be fined. The personal protective equipment must be provided for the employee by the employer. Personal protection includes helmets, safety lines, lifelines, lanyards, safety nets, eye protection, foot protection etc. All personal protection equipment must meet applicable regulations to verify the equipment is safe for employees to use. The contractor or subcontractor is required to provide employees training. Any contractor and/or subcontractor who does not train employees may be fined. The employer shall verify each employee fully understands and knows how to avoid unsafe conditions. If an employer feels that an employee is not properly trained it is the employer's duty to make sure that person is trained correctly. It is also the employer's duty to know applicable regulations to control and eliminate any hazards. Resources: 1. OSHA Regulations
My Response:
I agree in general with OSHA regulations. There are some instances when I've been on a construction site that common sense says that a safety helmet isn't needed but OSHA regulations require it. My survey crew recently had to sit through an hour long "training" in order to survey in the woods near a power plant. Of course they had to wear helmet, glasses and steel toe shoes. I'm also aware of fatal accidents related to ditch collapses. These are also common sense situations. If you put someone in a ditch over their head – you need shoring. You shouldn't need regulations for that BUT some contractors ignore the regulations and common sense. So, overall I'm good with the regs. If they keep accidents from happening because a contractor is scared of a fine, then I'll bear the extra time in training and wear those clunky steel toed shoes. Keith – Pro17 Engineering
