A Pennsylvania Supreme Court judge has upheld a $68.5 million jury verdict in a wrongful-death case brought by the wife and son of an immigrant coating facility worker who died while working on a small apartment project in Philadelphia in late 2021.
The case is typical of many urban construction injuries and fatalities where local developers and building owners are constructing or renovating small structures.
In June, a jury in state court in Philadelphia ruled that contractors involved in the project must pay damages to the wife and son of recent Belarusian immigrant Siarhei Marhunou, 38, who fell from a balcony about 45 feet off the ground in Philadelphia. Central City neighborhood.
Hanna Marhunou, the woman, had filed a wrongful-death lawsuit against OCF Construction, Fitler Construction Group and 2330 Sansom Street LLC, all companies affiliated with developer Ori Feibush. Two other subcontracting companies on the project were also named as defendants. Siarhei Marhunou had been working for a cladding company, DPSY LLC.
Federal safety officials cited DPSY LLC for three serious violations related to the crash in 2022, one of which related to the Marhunou accident. One of the citations is being contested and another has been settled, according to Occupational Safety and Health Administration records.
Marhunou was not wearing a fall protection harness at the time.
No one saw Siarhei Manhunou fall from the corner of the balcony, but the wooden railing that had been erected on the balcony by one of the contractors did not comply with OSHA and the suit claimed it gave way when Manhunou came into contact with it. A video camera on a building across the street showed the last 10 feet of Manhunou’s fall, along with a piece of the railing, in which the worker suffered serious head and chest injuries.
During the discovery phase of the trial, Feibush, in a statement, said no one could be sure how the fall occurred. He noted that he had personally received safety training but was not present at the site at the time of the accident.
Several defendants reached plea deals before the four-day trial. In its verdict, the jury assigned 50 percent of the blame to OCF Construction and 20 percent each to Fitler Construction and 2230 Sansom Street, Marhunou’s attorneys say. The remaining 10 percent was split among the project’s underwriters, the lawyers said, who were not affiliated with Feibush.
Feibush could not immediately be reached for comment.
In its appeal seeking a new trial, OCF said the plaintiffs failed to establish a duty of care owed to the victim by OCF, that the magnitude of the harm was not justified, and that the jury was not invited to consider how much the victim may have contributed to his own death through his own negligence.
The judge justifies the size of the award
In his denial of the appeal, Judge Angelo J. Foglietta wrote that there was sufficient evidence here that OCF Construction continued to serve as the general contractor even after Feibush had changed the role of general contractor to Fitler . He also noted that plaintiff’s safety expert witness had testified that OCF was responsible for providing a fall arrest system.
As for the justification for the size of the award, Foglietta wrote that there was sufficient cause based on the victim’s terror during the fall and his immediate pain from serious injuries before he died. He also wrote that the award covers the loss of lifelong parental support for Manhunou’s son, who is now three, and the deprivation of companionship for Hanna. She had testified before the jury about what she tells her son when he asks where his father is. “She tells him that her father went to live in a cloud but she loves him very much,” Foglietta wrote.
Regarding the proposition that the jury should have been given the option of assigning a percentage of negligence to Manhunou himself, because under current safety practices workers are told that they are “all responsible for the security,” Foglietta recorded verbatim his exchange with the OCF attorney during the appeal hearing.
“Without anyone knowing how the accident happened,” Foglietta was quoted as saying, “therefore, I cannot say that the jury could determine that the plaintiff was relatively negligent.”
