MELVIN AND LINDA CERNY,
GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES V HAWKINS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, STATE OF NEBRASKA,
OTHERSAccording to this suit, Hawkins Construction Company
was charged with failing to use reasonable and ordinary care in the
construction, maintenance and repair of the southbound I-680 freeway ramp at
Pacific Street. The suit claims that Hawkins Construction Company left the
ramp open during construction, even though it was in an inherently dangerous
condition, failed to post warning signs and the temporary ramp lacked
adequate space for acceleration and observation of freeway traffic.
As a result, the case charged that Melvin Cerny’s car was rear ended in
an accident on the ramp. He suffered severe injuries, lost income and ended
up in a wheel chair. The Cerny’s sued for $525,000.
GERALD BARRETT V HAWKINS
CONSTRUCTION CO., AETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY
Gerald Barrett was a laborer employee of Hawkins Construction. He
suffered severe spinal injuries while he was working for Hawkins
Construction. His court suit claimed he lost almost two years of work from
his injuries and suffered permanent, partial disabilities. His case ended up
in court and Hawkins Construction agreed to settle the matter by making a
substantial payment to Mr. Barrett.
HAWKINS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
V THE DOUGLAS COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
In an apparent effort to make sure that only the "little people" pay
their fair share of taxes, Hawkins Construction Company sought to dodge the
county’s property tax assessment in this court action, claiming that the
county’s actions were unconstitutional.
HAWKINS CONSTRUCTION
LOSES A JURY TRIAL OVER A WORKER INJURED ON A HAWKINS CONSTRUCTION JOB
EDWARD MEINKE AND WEAVER GLASS COMPANY V HAWKINS CONSTRUCTION CO.
Edward Meinke was an employee of Weaver Glass on the First National Bank
Project at 114th and Dodge Street in West Omaha.
Hawkins Construction was the general contractor on that job and was
responsible for maintaining safe stairways and stairwells on that project.
According to Meinke’s complaint, he had to attempt to descend an
unlighted stairwell and lost his footing. He twisted his ankle and fell,
suffering a severe injury. His suit charged that Hawkins Construction’s
negligence and carelessness consisted of the following:
• Failure to light the stairwell.
• Failing to keep the stairwell and stairway in a clean and orderly
condition.
• Failing to post a warning that the stairway was unsafe.
• Failing to provide a safe place to work.
Meinke claimed that he lost 17 days of work because of his permanent
injury and he sued for special and general damages. He sued for over $2,000.
Unwisely, Hawkins Construction decided to fight the suit. The case went
to a jury, which ruled against Hawkins Construction and awarded damages of
$7,500 to Meinke.
HAWKINS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
V REIMAN CORP.
In this unusual case, Hawkins Construction Company bid on a Nebraska
highway job, while relying on the $38,000 bid for part of the work,
submitted by Reiman Corporation. Reiman Corporation charged that Hawkins
Construction Company never formally accepted Reiman’s bid and later refused
to perform the work for $38,000. Hawkins Construction Company then sued
Reiman. The trial court granted Reiman’s motion for a summary judgement
against Hawkins Construction Company and the appeals court affirmed the
finding against Hawkins Construction Company.
COURT SUIT CHARGES
HAWKINS CONSTRUCTION WITH CAUSING INJURIES AND DAMAGES TO MEMBERS OF THE
GENERAL PUBLIC
WILLIAM DONOFRIO V HAWKINS CONSTRUCTION, JOHN SCHWEICH
In this bizarre case, Donofrio charged that he was driving down West D
Street in Omaha, when he approached a Hawkins Construction job site.
Although Donofrio stopped his vehicle at the request of the Hawkins
Construction flagman, the flagman "violently grabbed [his] left arm. When [Donofrio]
attempted to drive away [the flagman] held onto [his] arm, thereby causing
severe injuries. . ."
Donofrio filed a court suit, claiming he suffered severe and disabling
injuries to his arm. He charged that Hawkins Construction, through the
actions of its flagman employee, was negligent, for failing to use
reasonable care in directing traffic at a construction zone and for failing
to follow Hawkins Construction’s written safety guidelines for the duties of
flagmen at construction zones. The case was later settled.
BIG PROBLEMS FOR
HAWKINS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY AT THE EPPLEY AIRPORT TERMINAL CONSTRUCTION AND
REPAIR JOB
EDWARD WILLIAMS, LAURA HUGHES V HAWKINS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
According to these lawsuits, Edward Williams was on his way to catch a
flight at Omaha’s Eppley Airport when he tried to walk across an uneven
floor that was under construction by Hawkins Construction Company. He
slipped and fell, suffering severe injuries to his leg and ankle. Two months
earlier, Laura Hughes was also at Eppley Airport, when she fell over a sharp
drop-off in a floor in the Terminal. Hughes’ suit charged that she suffered
permanent injuries to her knees and legs. The separately filed suits charged
that Hawkins Construction Company:
• Failed to warn of the dangerous condition of the floor.
• Failed to provide persons with a safe place to walk.
• Failed to exercise reasonable care to make the premises safe.
BRYAN VOSSLER & ELIASON AND
KNUTH, INC. V HAWKINS CONSTRUCTION, CECO CONSTRUCTION
This lawsuit charged that Hawkins Construction was the general contractor
on a project at the Veteran’s Administration Hospital in Omaha, Nebraska and
Eliason & Knuth was the drywall and sheet rock subcontractor. Bryan Vossler
was an Eliason & Knuth employee.
While Vossler was working on a scaffold, he was smashed on the head by a
falling 4" x 4", 12-foot shoring beam. Vossler was knocked from the
scaffolding and fell another 2 ½ stories to another scaffolding platform. He
suffered serious injuries from the fall, including fractures in his
vertebrae, head lacerations and other sprains and fractures. He was
temporarily, totally disabled and suffered permanent, partial disabilities.
His medical bills totaled over $8,800. He filed a court suit for damages
from Hawkins Construction and others.
His suit charged that Hawkins Construction’s negligence by itself and
with others, included:
• Failure to warn Vossler that improperly secured beams were being used
above his work area. • Failure to adequately supervise the securing and
bracing of the shoring beams and the related operations.
• Failure to coordinate the construction work on the project so that
Vossler would not have to work under the area where the shoring beams were
in use.
• Failure to provide Vossler with adequate overhead protection.
• Failure to provide Vossler with a reasonably safe place to work.
MICHAEL O’KELLY V HAWKINS
CONSTRUCTION, CIGNA INSURANCE COMPANY
According to this complaint, O’Kelly was an employee of Hawkins
Construction. He suffered a back injury as a result of an on-the-job
accident. He claimed he was permanently disabled by 25 percent and his
medical bills alone totaled $6,681. His case ended up in State District
Court and Hawkins Construction settled it by agreeing to have their
insurance carrier, Cigna, pay O’Kelly $14,551.
HAWKINS CONSTRUCTION
COMPANY SUED OVER UNPAID DEBTS
S & S CONSTRUCTION V HAWKINS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, AMERICAN INSURANCE
COMPANY, OTHERS
Hawkins Construction Company won the bid for a State of Nebraska highway
project in Otoe County, but S & S Construction charges in this court suit
that they were not fully paid for the rental of a grader to one of Hawkins
Construction Company’s subcontractors. S&S sued Hawkins Construction Company
and others for $6,850. This may seem like a minor controversy, but if you
were a construction customer of Hawkins Construction Company and a
subcontractor went unpaid, you could be facing a lien against your property.
A lien could encumber your property as effectively as another mortgage.
Prompt payment of debts is a very important obligation of a construction
contractor.
AIRPORT AUTHORITY V HAWKINS
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, TERRACON CONSULTANTS, STACON CORPORATION
The Airport Authority of the City of Omaha hired Hawkins Construction
Company to realign and construct a storm sewer. Once the job began, Hawkins
Construction Company complained that they were owed more money than their
original bid, because the project site had to be dewatered.
The Airport Authority rejected Hawkins Construction Company’s claim and
charged that;
• The contract required Hawkins Construction Company to perform a
groundwater elevation investigation.
• The contract placed a duty on Hawkins Construction Company to perform
the proper testing, but Hawkins Construction Company did not do so.
Hawkins Construction Company apparently also tried to finesse the entire
process. They hired an attorney who was a former member of the Board of
Directors of the Omaha Airport Board Authority and by hiring a law firm that
also represented the Authority on certain matters, including the contract
for the Hawkins Construction Company job!
The Authority responded with a motion to disqualify Hawkins Construction
Company’s attorneys and law firm from representing Hawkins Construction
Company.