Posted on 08/01/2006 7:06:01 AM PDT by LurkedLongEnough
NEWTOWN - The estate of a man electrocuted while painting the Newtown Meeting House is suing the town and the nonprofit group that controls the local landmark, claiming the work environment wasn't safe.
Virginia Martinez of Port Chester, N.Y., filed a lawsuit against Newtown and the Heritage Preservation Trust of Newtown Inc. on July 19. Martinez, a family friend, claims that the town and the trust were negligent in the July 26, 2004, death of Ivan Patricio Tenecela, a native of Ecuador who lived in Port Chester, N.Y.
Danbury Probate Court appointed Martinez as executrix of Tenecela's estate In April 2005."It was an unsatisfactory work environment we are studying," said the estate's lawyer, Philip Russell of Greenwich.
Martinez claims Newtown and the trust are responsible for Tenecela's death because they did not warn him about the power lines or "hire a competent painting company."
Tenecela, 25, was among a group of seven painters working on the outside of the 18th century Meeting House on Main Street when electricity from a power line shot through an aluminum ladder and shocked him and another man.
The second man, Victor Sesquisela, of Port Chester, N.Y., lived but was severely burned. He also came from Ecuador. He does not have a lawsuit on file in Superior Court, and Russell said he did not know if Sesquisela plans to file one.
Russell said Tenecela came here to work to support his wife, two children and extended family, who are still in Ecuador.
"It's a big blow. A lot of money had been invested in getting him here," Russell said. "He was a financial lifeline. His goal in life was to work hard in America and send money back to his family."
Russell declined to give more details about his client's background, including when his client came to America. When asked if Tenecela had a green card, Russell declined to comment.
Whether he was legally in the United States or not doesn't affect his right to sue, Russell said. "This is America. The rights of humans are the rights of everyone."
Tenecela's estate also filed a lawsuit against Campbell Quality Painting, which hired him and others to paint the house in 2005. John Chaffee of Westport, who is representing Campbell, declined comment Monday. The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, which investigates worker safety, fined Campbell $3,000, saying Tenecela was not properly trained.
OSHA cited Campbell for tying two ladders together to give them a longer reach, for using the wrong type of ladder near electrical equipment, and for failing to provide a training program for employees who would be using the ladders in a hazardous environment.
Russell said his client went to work that day ill-prepared to paint. He was wearing sneakers that had holes in them.
The Meeting House is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. It is owned by the town, but a private trust maintains it.
Newtown's lawyer, David Grogins, said the case will be referred to CIRMA, or the Connecticut Interlocal Risk Management Agency."The town would be represented by the insurance carrier," said Grogins, of the firm Cohen and Wolf of Danbury.
Barefoot to boot.
So, now we're supposed to not only place water fountains in the desert but also provide them with the proper footwear?
I don't know about consensus, but here's my $.02 (based on the article).
That company alone could solve our ILLEGAL immigration problem.
(Yeah I'm in a mean mood - my back frigging hurts and I can't sue anyone for it!)
Okay, I too see a couple people (only two or three up until your post) who blow off a some steam by posting harsh responses, but you the occasion to criticize the whole site!?!?! There were a few arguments posted as well, or didn't you notice?
In case I'm not being clear, I too cringe at the apparent heartlessness of a couple of the plans, but as I contemplate , I come to the conclusion that the rhetorical tactic of overstatement is being used to accentuate point - this is just a debate after all.
It really concerns me that you take the opportunity here to take a swipe at the site.
The site provides a unique forum to hash out conservative philosophy and practice. Check out the DU site if you want to see consistent, pervasive, disgusting and ugly views.
Have you been in any hospitals lately? Who do you think is doing the cleaning there now? I can tell you one thing - Hospitals here in Fairfax County, Virginia prefer their janitors illegal, undocumented, and easily replacable, apparently...
That picture speaks volumes. Jobs Americans won't do, indeed!
Connecticut ping!
Please Freepmail me if you want on or off my infrequent Connecticut ping list.
No, I was not. (And please feel free to intrude at your discretion...I love discussing this type of thing :-)
---
I'd argue that neither the Constitution nor "common law" offers any such right of writ, but rather the notion that "anyone can sue" is one bestowed upon us by the U.S. Code (see my post above), a product of Federal legislation created by cretins in Congress.
LOL! 'Cretins' is too mild a word. If you notice your US Code cite though, you'll see that the phrase 'United States' is NEVER used, but every time it says 'State', it actually means 'the United States'. This is more of the 'words of art' legal crapola government uses to control the people.-(d) The word “States”, as used in this section, includes the Territories, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
When certain things are included, everything else is, by default, excluded.
-----
Whether the federal government likes it or not, their jurisdiction is limited and restricted by the terms of the Constitutional contract.
Unfortunately, the People have become so ignorant of the construction of the law, they don't even realize that there is more than one type of 'law' in operation in our country. The government can say or do the most outrageous things, and the People say "Uh....okay!"
It's enough to make one ill!
-----
The reason illegals have *special* rights is because they ARE 'illegal'.
Using the intent of the Founders in establishing our Republic, you will discover there is NO SUCH THING as a ~United States citizen~. All the writings of the Founders that I've read say 'citizen of the United States', or State citizen.......NEVER United States citizen.
Even though the authority to create a new class of citizenship appears nowhere in the Constitution, the federal government has done just that. A 'United States citizen' is a creation of government. One of the oldest and most basic tenants of law, 'that which you create, you have the right to control', is what gives the federal government jurisdiction over US Citizens. The United States government was originally constructed to be a civil entity inside it’s Constitutional boundaries, and a statutory (or administrative) entity when dealing with the governments of the respective States.
Illegals have no *legal entity*, so they are still considered 'natural persons'. BY LAW. Natural persons are under the jurisdiction of natural, or common/civil law.
Here is nolo's definition of:
natural person
A living, breathing human being, as opposed to a legal entity such as a corporation. Different rules and protections apply to natural persons and corporations, such as the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, which applies only to natural persons.
That's why illegals get preferential treatment over Americans....they have no legal entity BECAUSE THEY ARE *illegal*.
It's also why the government is so hot under the collar to 'legalize' all the 'illegals'.
Since government has made 'citizenship' a burden instead of a benefit, I think it would be a good thing for all we lowly 'US citizens' to expatriate ourselves en masse.
Hey--wait a minute. I'm a big fan of this site. I really didn't mean for my comment to be taken as a criticism of FR. Looking back, I can see that I shouldn't have phrased my response that way. My comments were directed exclusively to the two or three posters with extreme views.
I've been to DU. Please don't banish me to DU.
No harm, no foul. I appreciate your explanation. Sorry I took it the wrong way. Lets just agree that the 2-3 posters were over the top.
For what it's worth, I don't have the power to banish anyone. Neither do I have the influence to suggest such. Even if I did, I don't'd think for a minute that what you said deserves any punishment - it's just another voice in debate which is always welcome (IMO).
Post your thoughts and let the chips fall were they may.
Regards,
David
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.