|
dangerous electrical sign
This action involved a tragic wrongful death incident, wherein Plaintiff’s husband
got electrocuted as a result of coming in contact with a defective/improperly installed sign
mounted on the outside wall of Defendant’s property, located in Pacoima, California. The
subject sign emitted and/or leaked a high voltage of electricity.
Being high school sweet hearts, Plaintiff and her husband had enjoyed many years
together. The pictures which Plaintiff had of herself and husband best described how close
of a relationship was between Plaintiff and her husband. In fact, at the emergency room
following the incident, Plaintiff was so devastated about her husband’s untimely death and
wanting to him to be back in her life that she requested preservation of her husband’s
seaman so that one day she may have his child.
The untimely death of Plaintiff’s husband could have been avoided had the
Defendants taken measures to safeguard against the dangerous condition which they
knew or should have known. The owner of the subject store, as well as owners of the
subject property, failed to remedy a known dangerous condition. Defendants who had
changed the plastic facing for the subject sign knew or should have know that the subject
sign was not grounded and that the ballast was leaking electricity within the subject sign.
Moreover, Defendants’ repairman who performed repair-modification work on the
subject sign by replacing the light bulbs and changing the ballast knew or should have
know about the defects.
Immediately following the incident, investigation into the matter was conducted by
Cal OSHA, Department of Water and Power. The investigative accident report revealed
that the subject sign was not properly grounded and that there was a failure in the
ballast. Further investigation revealed that due to the referenced defects, the subject sign
was emitting over 500 Volts.
The defect in the subject sign which electrocuted decedent was created and allowed
to exist by Defendants.
Based on information and belief, prior to the subject incident, Defendant owner and
or lessor had leased the store which had the subject sign mounted on the outside wall to
Defendant, lessee. As part of the lease agreement, the owner allowed Defendant lessee
to conduct construction to convert the store for its own use. In conducting construction,
Defendant lessee admitted that through it contractors-agents, it performed repairmodification
work on the subject sign. In performing repair-modification of the subject sign,
the plastic covering for the sign was removed so that the ballast as well as the light bulbs
could be changed.
The Defendants admitted that the lack of grounding of the sign was noticeable
immediately upon removing of the plastic covering to the subject sign. Despite such fact,
Defendants’ agents who performed work on the subject sign failed to remedy the lack of
grounding and the defective ballast.
Additionally, based on information and belief, the subject sign was repaired-modified
by unlicenced improperly trained electrical technicians. During the construction, Defendant
owner not only failed to make sure that a licensed contractor was hired to perform any of
the construction work, but failed to visit the store to make sure that the construction was
being performed in compliance with safety regulations and codes.
* Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances. Because every case is different, the descriptions of awards and cases previously handled are not meant to be a guarantee of success.
|
