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.
Nobody is going to call a slave trader a good guy. We put people in jail for hurting cats and dogs.
If an illegal rapes my wife or child., the courts will be looking at me. I hope I get the same kind of jury that the mcD's woman got in her spilled coffee reward.
All of your scenarios are giving rights to the illegal, while apparently taking the recourse away from the victims.
Keep testing those premises, though. Maybe one will work!
... though I must admit, your idea does have quite an appeal as well. ;)
Wow. This site is host to some disgusting, ugly views. Do you go to church on Sundays and pretend that you are a good, charitable person?
Bush, the Senate, and Evil Big Business responsible because one illegal is electrocuted while doing a job for a small painting company? That could have come right off DU.
It's not the big businesses, by and large, that hire illegals, so why are they the ones responsible, instead of the business that actually hired this guy?
Dear pageonetoo,
I'm not looking for a fight at all.
In fact, Lazamataz has replied that he's fine with refusing to offer the protection of the law to illegal immigrants who are shot, raped, or enslaved.
I just wanted to see how far Lazamataz took his principle.
He takes it to its logical conclusion, and doesn't flinch from fidelity to it. His is a very consistent approach.
sitetest
Dear Xenalyte,
"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."
Could be. Or they may have taken the risks they took to come illegally to this country because home was even worse. I don't know any individual's circumstances.
However, that really isn't the question. The question is, would you deny the protection of the law to illegal immigrants by refusing to prosecute those who committed grave crimes against them?
That's what Lazamataz posited. Here's what he said:
"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."
To his credit, he's stuck by the principle when I've asked him about different possible circumstances where that might apply.
sitetest
I understand your point of view.
[/end humor]
I can send clients to the caribbean or South America for as little as a grand apiece on a cruise ship. If you took out the amenities (TV's, nice linens, etc. store them in a warehouse for a few months, and give the cabin stewards a bonus for having to put up with the crap (literally, I am sure). and placed 6-8 to a room, added life rafts to meet regs, and cooked beans and rice along the way, we can cut that to about $500 per, or less. Give the balcony cabins and suites to those that volunteer to go home. Drop them offalaong the way in their home country, with an application to return.
But, they must first pass an english comprehension test, and have a job guaranteed, a place to live (not crowded ten to a room), and absolutely NO PATH TO citizenship, nor any right to our social services.
The law says that a sponsor is "responsible" for their charges. That should include medical care, etc. If the kids want to go to American schools, they should be allowed, but they do not get any services, and they must pay!
Does anybody know any immigration judges? I'll start talking to cruise lines today.
Oh yeah, take those damn anchor babies back with you. They can come back when they grow up, and get in line. maybe we can give them a couple of spaces closer to the front.
Dear detsaoT,
I think your position is understandable to me.
It appears to offer more protection of the law to illegal immigrants than Lazamataz's view, in that you would at least prosecute those who committed serious crimes against illegal immigrants as part of the process of deporting them after the trial (and all appeals, perhaps?) is concluded.
sitetest
Most of us are good, charitable people who are utterly disgusted at the government's lack of ability to control our borders, and disturbed that illegal immigrants are typically able to get away with crimes scot-free. Would you rather us hand the Treasury over to people who just arrived? Or do LAWFUL CITIZENS not have any say in THEIR government any longer??
It's an approach that is consistently stupid and which would cause untold misery for the rest of us. Imagine that his view that emergency services are to be denied to illegal immigrants. Do you remember when you applied for a job and you had to show various forms of identification to meet the employer's burden? Now imagine that you've been in a terrible automobile accident, and your life is slipping away. The police and ambulance crew stands by, waiting for you to produce your Social Security Card and driver's license before hooking up the heart machine to you. Unfortunately, you left the SSN card at home, so you die. But, Lazamataz is happy because he's stickin' it to the illegals. Boy genius here.
Honestly, it was an accident, your honor!
Wet, dense wood, definitely. Light, dry wood is a good insulator.
Right—the significance of my position is that the victim of the crime would not be party to the criminal proceedings, but would rather be a witness to the crime. (This does lead to a quandry, though—How can one be sure that someone who lied to enter the country, would tell the truth on the stand? And how do you prevent a witness of this nature from changing their story under threat or other duress?)
Laz's solution may just be a bit easier, but I'm not sure I'd sign on 100% without trying my way first. ;)
Regards,
~dt~
If you're disgusted at the government's inaction, take it out on the government. That's what elections are for. If, as a democratic principle, a majority want the borders closed, it'll happen. If not, then admit that you are on the losing side of the vote. Of course, you can keep trying to win a majority for that view. But, don't declare open season on other human beings. Jesus didn't do that with the prostitute. And, the Samaritan didn't ask for a green card first.
My sensible interpretation, which of course will be different from what the government's is, is with the clear wording with "citizenship."
Of course a resident alien should have full rights short of voting, so saying one doesn't have to be a citizen makes sense. I don't think it should at all apply to illegals.
I'm starting to think we need to bring back the notion of a Debtor's Prison...
I'm starting to think we need to bring back the notion of a Debtor's Prison...
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.