Shock to the System

Defendant Found “Not Liable” for Worker’s Electric Shock Claim

Defendant Found “Not Liable” for Worker’s Electric Shock Claim

Here is a surprise for WC professionals: a New York appellate court upheld a finding of no liability for the defendant on a worker’s claim for alleged injuries from a static electrical shock.

Mario Saraiva allegedly suffered injuries from a static electrical shock by touching a PVC vacuum pipe while sandblasting paint on an overpass on the New York State Thruway.

Saraiva filed suit against the New York State Thruway Authority. He asserted that the authority was negligent in permitting him to work near a known defective PVC vacuum pipe that had previously caused similar static electrical shocks to other workers on the site.

The authority moved for summary judgment dismissing Saraiva’s Labor Law claim, but Court of Claims Justice Debra A. Martin denied the motion.

The Appellate Division’s 4th Department affirmed.

The case then went to a bench trial, which resulted in a finding of no liability for the authority.

The Appellate Division’s 4th Department rejected Saraiva’s claim that the trial justice erred in striking a portion of testimony from a witness who asserted that on two occasions, he had received a static electrical shock on the worksite before Saraiva’s accident.

“Trial courts are accorded wide discretion in making evidentiary rulings,” the court said, so without an abuse of discretion, those rulings “should not be disturbed on appeal.”

Even if the trial justice erred in striking the testimony at issue, the court said, the error would have been harmless because the justice ultimately considered the testimony and “simply declined to credit any of that witness’s testimony.”

The court also said the trial justice did not err in precluding Saraiva from impeaching certain testimony of another witness using the prior report on the basis that it constituted inadmissible evidence of subsequent remedial measures.

It is well settled that evidence of repairs made after an accident “is inadmissible if offered as an admission of negligence or culpability in causing the injury,” the court said.

The court said the trial justice did not err in limiting the testimony of Saraiva’s expert witness. The expert was properly precluded from testifying about the magnitude of the shock received by Saraiva, as such testimony exceeded the scope of the expert disclosure, and the authority would have been prejudiced if the testimony was admitted.

The court said the trial justice still considered, and rejected, aspects of the expert’s testimony suggesting that the shock had been “significant” anyway.

To read the court’s decision in Saraiva v. New York State Thruway Authority, No. 863 CA 24-00174, 01/31/2025, published, visit this link.

https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2025/2025_00567.htm

Maybe things will change? Maybe not.

But every decision counts.

Legal system abuse is becoming better known and more easily identified, thanks to the efforts of The American Property Casualty Insurance Association (APCIA) and Munich Reinsurance America, Inc. (Munich Re US). A survey they conducted on consumer attitudes about certain plaintiff lawyer tactics, including excessive lawyer advertising, generating nuclear jury awards, engaging in hidden third party litigation funding (TPLF), and jury anchoring revealed the deepening sense of consumer concern.I believe that the trials to which President Trump was subjected – tehgaming of the system- also heightened awareness..

The online survey, conducted by The Harris Poll among more than 2,000 U.S. adults, revealed a majority are not familiar with the terms “jury anchoring” (75%) and “TPLF” (70%). Once informed, 69% believe the practices of TPLF and jury anchoring will increase the overall cost of home, auto, and business insurance for all Americans, and 66% agree that these tactics will also increase the cost of everyday items, including consumer goods.

See the chart for a quick summary.

SA