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.
Dear drb9,
Please don't misinterpret my admiration for Lazamataz's adherence to his principle for approval or acceptance of his principle.
However, lots of bluster about, but when you present them with a specific set of circumstances, all the exceptions, caveats, and reasons why that set of circumstances isn't really what they're talking about come out.
Although many people would consider it barbaric to state that a person who is raped or enslaved has no recourse to the law because they're here illegally, Lazamataz, to his credit, has not flinched from that conclusion, which is consistent with his overall principle.
Give credit where credit is due.
sitetest
(Sorry for the double post :) )
Sorry Darlin'. It doesn't work that way.
Don't get me wrong. If it were left up too me, we'd built a 40 fence and catapult every illegal we caught back over it, toot sweet!
But the Constitution is based on common law where everyone has basic, unalienable rights regardless of their nationality.
Dear detsaoT,
"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?"
Of course, the greater quandary is that, knowing that they will be deported as part of the process, most illegal immigrants will not come forward against slavers, murderers, and rapists. Is it fair to say that you're okay with that result?
Thanks,
sitetest
Don't come into this country illegally, and no one has to get medieval on yer ass.
Do you go to church on Sundays and pretend that you are a good, charitable person?
No, I'm one of those Evil JOOOOooooos so I never go to Church. However, you won't find a kinder, sweeter person than me. I seek to be of service to my fellow man whenever I can.
Sometimes that service is harsh, so that you might benefit from the lesson.
Do things the right way, and you won't get yer weenie whacked.
He did say" go and sin no more"!
Yours is a false premise.
If you are an illegal immigrant, and you are faced with the prospect of ZERO protection under the law, would you:
A) Stay and take your chances, or
B) Run For The BorderTM?
I'm choosin' B)
(b) I've never declared "open season" on any individuals. On the other hand, every individual MUST be aware of the ramifications of the decisions they make. Ignorance cannot possibly remove all of the risks from entering this country illegally, and we shouldn't be expected to bend over backwards to do the same.
(c) Jesus also had quite a few thoughts on obeying the law of the land in which you live (Recall "Render unto Cæsar?") as well, but you don't see me trumping those out to try and gain some kind of moral supremacy. The fact that you insist on bringing irrelevancies into this argument to try and make those who disagree with you look inhuman speaks volumes.
You may be happy with this wave of immigrants crossing the border—who's to say? I can easily imagine my life without them, as that's exactly how my youth was spent. I'd love to see this country return to that condition, eventually. As always, you're more than welcome to disagree. Disagreements are one thing we'll always have here on FR.
Most respectfully,
~dt~
Make me Brigadier Infantry General, Supreme Head Imperial Tyrant (B.I.G.S.H.I.T. for short) and it would would that way within about a week. ;^)
(a) A majority, in poll after poll, DO want the border closed. The goons we send to Washington ignore that. Are we being fairly represented? Your snide "losing side of the vote" comment is meaningless if our representatives are not doing what we're sending them to Washington to do, is it not?
Well, the simpler solution actually involves running and chainsaws and shrieking.
But my way will work.
Dear detsaoT,
"The solution to the medical question is simple—Those treated in a public facility who are unable to pay for their medical treatment are entered into a period of mandatory servitude towards the State which paid for their treatment, until such time as their bill has been paid off with labor."
LOL! How generous of you! ;-)
Would this apply to those who live here legally, as well, including citizens? To someone who couldn't afford health insurance for themselves or their families?
When my mother died, she was in the hospital for six days. It cost $114,000. At the minimum wage, subtracting out, say, $500 per month for room and board (that's a pretty good deal, right?), our illegal immigrant (or any other person to whom we apply this principle) will be working for 25 years to pay back the principal on a bill of that magnitude. Is the state charging any interest?
Of course, this appears to conflict with that whole 13th Amendment thing...
sitetest
Laz, you are SUCH a stinker!
:-)
Forgive me for intruding on your point, Ma'am, but were you aware that all aliens were denied the right to petition or participate in the Federal Court system until after the 1940's? 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.
As always, it's my pleasure to be,
Most Respectfully,
~dt~
Dear Lazamataz,
It depends what I thought I'd find on the other side of the border.
I expect a lot of folks will come here or stay here and take their chances until something bad happens to them or one of their family. Many of them will stay even after that happens.
Many illegal immigrants already believe that if they come forward to the authorities when a crime is committed against them that they will be deported. Thus, lots of folks are already operating under that assumption. Yet, they continue to come here and stay here.
I guess a lot of folks choose A).
sitetest
It's one thing to have a payment plan and pay down your debts. It's another to skip out on the hospital and leave innocent Taxpayers with the bill. The 13th's restriction on involuntary servitude excludes service due as a punishment for crime, and last I checked, stealing was still a crime.
(Of course, considering that we don't even force inmates into any kind of service any longer sorta kiboshes my whole idea, but I hope you get the point anyway. The British had absolutely the right idea on the punishment of crime. Too bad we don't have the moral fortitude to follow in the footsteps of our ancestors any longer...)
Regards,
~dt~
That's what life is. Make your choices and live with the consequences.
Mine is a theoretical argument. It'll never happen. It's allowed me the chance to explore that option with all of you. There are some compelling arguments in it's favor ... it will reduce illegal immigration in the long-term. The downside is that it's harsh.
But OTOH, life is harsh. Deal with life on life's terms.
Dear detsaoT,
Actually, for someone who winds up in the hospital with a debt that he cannot realistically pay back (especially if we charge a minimal amount of interest), we do have a legal facility. It's called bankruptcy.
Thus, in that this is precisely a kind of circumstance for which the bankruptcy law was designed and intended, folks should be able to escape your proposed system through the use of bankruptcy law.
As well, generally, the inability to repay a debt isn't considered theft, although there are exceptions. Everyone who grants credit (I own a business and I grant credit) knows that if you grant credit and someone can't pay you, you can't have them arrested for theft, generally speaking.
sitetest
Dear Lazamataz,
"...it will reduce illegal immigration in the long-term."
As you pointed out, "it'll never happen."
Thus, your quote should read, "...it would reduce illegal immigration in the long-term."
And it might.
So would just shooting illegal immigrants on the spot when identified. Or issuing hunting licenses to persons to hunt them down and shoot them.
sitetest
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.