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.
I wonder what the consensus is here.
The courts are one, but I would also include hospitals and police.
Yeah - don't hit electrical wires with an aluminum ladder...?
I don't know about consensus, but my opinion? Fiberglass ladders please.
I don't know about fiberglass, but our CT electric company sent a brochure recently warning that even a wooden ladder can carry electricity enough to kill ya.
Dear Lazamataz,
"If you are an illegal, you may not afford yourself of any public service offered by the government of the United States.
"The courts are one, but I would also include hospitals and police."
So, if someone shoots you, or rapes your wife or daughter (who are both here illegally), you should have no recourse to the law?
Thanks,
sitetest
If you were in Mexico illegally....
..and someone shot you, or raped your wife or child, what recourse do you think you would have there?
Absolutely. If you are here illegally you are 100% fair game for any thug, rapist, or bully.
Call it a disincentive.
Absolutely. If you are here illegally you are 100% fair game for any thug, rapist, or bully.
Call it a disincentive.
I believe if you are here illegally, you have NO Constitutional rights, and should NOT be recognized in a U.S. Court or local Court, i.e., you LEGALLY do not exist here.
Dear Guenevere,
"If you were in Mexico illegally....
"..and someone shot you, or raped your wife or child, what recourse do you think you would have there?"
Is your question what recourse I actually would have? Or what recourse I should have?
sitetest
.I said...
..what recourse do you think you would have there?
Dear Lazamataz,
Okay. Just checking.
Here in Maryland, there was an interesting case a few years back. There was this Chinese restaurant (they had a dish called "Hong Kong Steak" - it was very tasty, but it certainly wasn't beef - dog? cat? anyway, it tasted good) that I often frequented for their buffet.
It turned out that they'd "bought" and illegal immigrant from a "coyote" who'd been paid by the illegal immigrant to bring him to the United States. They kept him chained in the basement when not working, and chained to the dishwasher during the day while he worked in the kitchen. Essentially, they'd enslaved him.
To make a long story short, eventually, the authorities caught on, and both owners, an uncle and nephew, went to prison for violation of the 13th Amendment.
So, you wouldn't have prosecuted these two for slavery?
Thanks,
sitetest
Wrong! Non-citizens, and non-resident aliens should have no right to sue, and our Courts should have no lawful jurisdiction to hear cases to which they are a party!
Under Federal law, 28 USC § 1332, Federal District Courts are limited to having jurisdiction only for resident aliens, though Congress has allowed non-resident aliens the ability to "Remove" their case from State to Federal courts,
(a) ...For purposes of removal under this chapter, the citizenship of defendants sued under fictitious names shall be disregarded.
And to make matters worse, our Courts may be clogged with any specious claim of an "infringed" right:
(b) Any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction founded on a claim or right arising under the Constitution, treaties or laws of the United States shall be removable without regard to the citizenship or residence of the parties. Any other such action shall be removable only if none of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought.
Our Congress has allowed non-citizens greater rights than citizens for almost a century now. Why do we continue to allow our Congress to utterly deconstruct our nation, and bow down before the hordes of illegal invaders at our gates?
Wake up, America. Your country needs you now more than ever!
Dear Guenevere,
"read it again...
".I said...
"'..what recourse do you think you would have there?'"
Just checking.
I asked because "should" is clearly relevant, "would" is less so.
If I say that I might have very little recourse to the law at all (such as it is) in Mexico, that doesn't really tell me what SHOULD be the case in the United States (or even what SHOULD be the case in Mexico).
I already know that Mexico is largely a hell-hole, and have no desire that our country should emulate them, especially in terms of law enforcement or how we run our government or recognize human and civil rights.
sitetest
Nope. No prosecution for the couple. If you are an illegal immigrant, you have NO protection under the law whatsoever.
In fact, upon finding this situation, I would rectify it by harshly prosecuting the illegal immigrant, and sending him back to his home country ..... where he would tell the tale of horror of his enslavement, with no penalty to the enslavers, to all of his friends.
And we'd have about 20 less illegal-immigrant-wannabees.
Non-citizen / Non-profit
Two negatives make a positive, right?
In that situation, had they not broken the law they undoubtedly would NOT have been raped or shot. Staying home would have prevented that crime.
It's almost never that clear, but here it indeed is.
Caveat emptor. The risk of coming to this country outside of the law is that you, as a person, will be entered into involuntary servitude. We see it with Mexicans crossing the border, we see it with Eastern European women transported here by mafia groups. The government's action is not to allow any kind of jurisdiction to those who are the victims of such activity, but to punish those who committed the crime. The victim of the crime should be cared for enough to testify in the criminal (NOT CIVIL) trial, and then should be graciously handed over to the authorities of their home country, to which they owe their allegiance and from which they should expect service.
There was never any intent in our Constitution to allow non-resident aliens jurisdiction in any of our Courts, State or Federal. We're not the world's "rights" police, and our Courts shouldn't be burdened with any such foolishness—though the reality is, they currently are behaving as both.
Hope this makes sense,
~dt~
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.