Main About Laser Critic Search Disclaimer FPC What's NEW

 

Litigation cont.
ERVIN SHEETS V HAWKINS CONSTRUCTION, AETNA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY, RICHARD LEE

Dale Sheets was an employee of Hawkins Construction who was severely injured while he was on the job. His court suit claimed he suffered severe, permanent and excruciatingly painful injuries and had over $100,000 in medical bills. His suit charged that he suffered a total loss of earning capacity.

FLOYD FRY V HAWKINS CONSTRUCTION

Floyd Fry was an ironworker employee of Hawkins Construction. He suffered a fracture of his elbow and other injuries while on the job for Hawkins Construction. He was temporarily, but totally disabled for over three months and his medical bills were over $1,600. His case entered the court system and Hawkins Construction agreed to settle his claim for $7,250.

JAMES AHRENDSEN V HAWKINS CONSTRUCTION CO.

Ahrendsen was a heavy equipment operator who worked for Hawkins Construction. While on the job for Hawkins Construction, he suffered a fractured hip and related hip and back injuries. He missed over two years of work because of his permanent disablement and he racked up $19,178 worth of medical bills for his care.

He filed an action in the Nebraska Workmen’s compensation court and an award was rendered.

He then ended up in State District Court over this matter and Hawkins Construction agreed to settle his claim for $52,500.

RON ERIC PATTERSON V HAWKINS CONSTRUCTION CO., HENNINGSON, DURHAM & RICHARDSON (HDR) AND WEATHERCRAFT ROOFING

Ron Eric Patterson was an employee of Weathercraft Roofing on the construction of the Federal Reserve Bank building at 24th and Farnham Streets in Omaha, while Hawkins Construction was the general contractor there. Patterson suffered severe, disabling and permanent injuries on that job, related to the application of hot tar to the building’s roof. His medical expenses and lost wages exceeded $28,000. His court complaint charged that Hawkins Construction had violated its duty to provide him with a safe work place by:

• Creating and maintaining a hazardous work area.

• Failing to warn Patterson of the on the job hazards.

• Failing to post adequate warnings.

• Failing to comply with governmental codes and regulations that require warnings about on the job hazards.

• Failing to properly supervise and monitor the work place.

THE FREEWAY CASES - Three separate Civil Action suits against Hawkins

Four members of the general public filed three separate civil actions against Hawkins Construction and others, including a Hawkins client, over the damages and discomfort they suffered during the construction of the "Storz Expressway" and the "North Freeway" construction projects in North Omaha. The plaintiffs in these cases— Lauris Roseboro, William Nugent & Elmer and Vicki Hardesty— charged that during construction of these freeways, Hawkins Construction and others:

• Pounded steel girders into the ground in such a way as to cause damage to nearby homes and their foundations.

• Failed to construct the highway in a workmanlike manner, thus causing damage to sur rounding properties.

• Caused cracking of brick and cement blocks in the foundations, cracked ceilings and walls within the houses and damages to the sod, grass and bushes around the houses.

The requested damages totaled $30,725

METROPOLITAN UTILITIES DISTRICT V HAWKINS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, CEDAR CONSTRUCTION

Hawkins Construction Company and others were excavating a storm sewer site at 24th and Davenport Streets in Omaha, when the walls of the excavation collapsed, breaking a natural gas main causing the escape of natural gas. Luckily, there was no explosion and fire, but there was $20,397 worth of damages to the Utility District, for which they sued Hawkins Construction Company. Their suit charged that Hawkins Construction Company:

• Failed to shore the walls of said excavation ditch so as to avoid the collapse and the resultant damage to plaintiff’s gas main.

• Failed to inspect the walls of said excavation ditch so as to become aware of deterioration which would result from normal earth movement and normal water flow.

• Failed to shore the walls of said excavation ditch after defendants knew or should have known of the deterioration.

LINDA REYNOLDS V EDWARD REZEK AND HAWKINS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

According to the lawsuit, Linda Reynolds was injured by a Hawkins Construction Company truck that was driven at excessive speed. Hawkins Construction Company settled the suit.

JEFFCO POWER SYSTEMS V HAWKINS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, CITY OF OMAHA, WOODWARD GOVERNOR COMPANY, OTHERS

Hawkins Construction Company had a contract with Jeffco Power Systems to provide two generator sets and other equipment for a wastewater treatment job for the City of Omaha. However, the job specifications began shifting and a change order was required. The job start was delayed and Jeffco sued.

ALCINE ANDERSON V HAWKINS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, CROWN ENTERPRISES, THE STATE OF NEBRASKA, OTHERS

Hawkins Construction Company had a construction job at the State of Nebraska building at 1313 Farnam Street in downtown Omaha. Alcine Anderson, an employee of the State Department of Education, fell and injured herself while having to use an unlighted stairway that was choked with construction debris. Her court suit charged that Hawkins Construction Company:

• Failed to keep the office premises in a safe condition.

• Failed to keep and maintain the stairway area.

• Failed to warn affected persons of the dangerous conditions in the stairway.

Anderson sued Hawkins Construction Company and others for $55,000.

Hawkins Construction Company, Inc., Others V E. E. Wilczewski, Wilczewski and Hawkins Investment, Others

According to this September 1984 court suit, the plaintiffs in this case are the defendants in another case, in this odd judicial squabble. Hawkins and Wilczewski had a deal for Hawkins to construct the "Knoll" project for $240,000. But a $51,375 change order began to poison their arrangement, when Hawkins claimed that Wilczewski did not pay it. Wilczewski, for his part, counter claimed that Hawkins Construction was not entitled to the payment, because it did not fully perform the contract and that Hawkins performed in an un-workmanlike manner. Specifically, Hawkins abandoned the job leaving the work that was completed, which was done poorly. Wilczewski counter-claimed that Hawkins actually owed him $472,920 in damages and lost profits.

Back Critic Up Next