If a building’s poor construction were to become the reason for a collapse in one of the building’s sections, then all sorts of lawsuits might get initiated. In each case the plaintiff would strive to prove negligence on the part of a specific person or business.
Who might be sued by anyone that was harmed, as a result of the collapse?
• The building’s owner
• The contractor
• The subcontractor
• The architect
• The engineers
The role of negligence in the 2 types of construction lawsuits
A lawsuit that seeks compensation for damaged property: Here the collapse could serve as evidence of negligence. As a professional, the contractor would be expected to meet a certain standard of care. The building’s collapse would have highlighted the absence of that standard of care.
The Injury Lawyer in Mississauga knows that the absence of a standard of care would equate with the breaching of a duty of care. The damage caused by the collapsing structure would introduce the final 2 elements of negligence. Once the evidence had shown that a professional contractor, subcontractor, architect or engineer had been careless and neglectful, then that some professional would become responsible for compensating the parties that had suffered a loss.
Lawsuit seeking damages for injuries
A lawsuit that seeks compensation for injuries: Two different categories of people might file such a lawsuit. One group would include the people that had been employed to work at the construction site. The other group would include those that were injured while visiting a construction project.
If a worker had brought a case, then the defendant would need to explain what protective equipment that same worker had received, and what sort of safety training was given to all the hired workers. On the other hand, the injured employee would have to say when his or her employer had received word of the harm that had been suffered by the employee.
Keep in mind the fact that there are 2 possible reasons for an employee to sue on the basis of an injury. One could be for the problems produced by a sudden injury. The other could be for the challenges created by a condition that had developed over an extended period of time.
If someone had been injured while visiting a construction site, then, during a potential court hearing, the defendant would get asked different questions. Had a warning sign been posted at the spot where the visitor was harmed? At what stage of the building’s construction had the accident taken place?
Of course, the defendant’s lawyer would have reason to ask why the plaintiff had entered the construction site. By the same token, the defendant’s attorney would have grounds for learning whether or not the visitor had taken any precautions, with regard to dress?