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.