- Home
- All Practice Areas
- Personal Injury
- What is Personal Injury?
- Personal Injury Statute of Limitations
- Can I Handle My Own Case?
- How Personal Injury Claims Work
- How Our Attorneys Can Help
- Denied Insurance Claims
- Personal Injury Damages
- Premises Liability
- San Antonio Personal Injury Attorney
- Types of Personal Injury
- Burn Injuries
- What is a Personal Injury Lawsuit?
- San Antonio Injury Attorney
- Can I File an Injury Claim?
- Mediating a Personal Injury Case
- The Victim's Duty to Mitigate Damages
- San Antonio Personal Injury Lawyers
- Preponderance of Evidence
- San Antonio Personal Injury Attorneys
- Proving Proximate Cause
- San Antonio Law Firms
- The Thin Skull Rule
- San Antonio Injury Lawyer
- Alternative Dispute Resolution
- San Antonio Injury Law Firm
- Vicarious Liability
- Personal Injury Attorneys in San Antonio
- Subrogation
- Personal Injury Lawyers in San Antonio
- San Antonio Injury Lawyers
- New Braunfels Personal Injury Attorney
- Wrongful Death
- Texas Wrongful Death Law Explained
- Wrongful Death Statute of Limitations
- The Benefits of a Wrongful Death Attorney
- Auto Accident Wrongful Death
- Semi Truck Accident Wrongful Death
- Wrongful Deaths on the Job
- Construction Accident Wrongful Death
- Loss of Future Earnings Compensation
- Texas Wrongful Death Lawyer
- New Braunfels Wrongful Death Lawyer
- Big Rig Accidents
- Texas Truck Accident Attorney
- Commercial Vehicle Accidents
- 18-Wheeler Accident Litigation
- Truck Accident Claims
- Insurance Company Tactics
- Fatal Big Rig Accidents
- Dump Truck Accidents
- Flatbed Trailer Accidents
- Falling Cargo Accidents
- Causes of 18-Wheeler Accidents
- San Antonio 18-Wheeler Accident Attorney
- San Antonio Truck Accident Lawyers
- San Antonio Truck Accident Attorney
- Unsafe Trucking Practices
- San Antonio Trucking Accident Attorney
- San Antonio Texas Trucking Accident Lawyer
- Tractor Trailer Accident Attorney
- Texas Truck Accident Lawyer
- San Antonio Truck Accident Firm
- New Braunfels 18-Wheeler Attorney
- New Braunfels Truck Accident Lawyer
- Automobile Accidents
- San Antonio Auto Accident Lawyer
- Common Car Accident Injuries
- How To File an Accident Injury Claim
- San Antonio Car Accident Lawyer
- Child Injuries in a Car Accident
- Passenger Injuries
- Fatal Car Accidents
- Personal Injury Protection (PIP) Insurance
- Proportionate Responsibility
- Tire Defect Accidents
- San Antonio Rollover Accident Attorney
- The Benefit of Hiring An Attorney
- Challenges Recovering Compensation
- Auto Accident Attorney in San Antonio
- San Antonio Accident Injury Lawyer
- San Antonio Auto Injury Attorney
- Uninsured Motorist Accidents
- San Antonio Accident Attorney
- What To Do After an Accident
- San Antonio Car Wreck Lawyer
- New Braunfels Car Accident Lawyer
- Work Related Accidents
- San Antonio Workers' Comp Lawyer
- Workers Comp Vs Non-Subscriber
- Fatal Workplace Accidents
- Gas & Oil Drilling Accidents
- Lifting Injuries While Working
- Non-Subscriber Injury Law
- What To Expect After a Work Injury
- Oilfield Worker Injury Accidents
- San Antonio Workers Compensation Attorney
- New Braunfels Work Injury Lawyer
- Construction Accidents
- Drunk Driver Accidents
- Other Vehicle Accidents
- Dangerous & Defective Products
- Drowning Accidents
- Day Care Abuse
- Medical Malpractice
- What is Medical Malpractice?
- Filing a Medical Malpractice Claim
- Malpractice Claims & Litigation Process
- Nursing Home Abuse & Neglect
- Misdiagnosis & Faulure to Diagnose
- Pharmacy & Prescription Errors
- Surgical Errors & Mistakes
- Nursing Malpractice
- Dental Malpractice
- Birth Injury
- San Antonio Nursing Home Abuse Attorney
- The Informed Consent Document
- Birth Injury Malpractice
- Drug & Pharmacy Injuries
- Personal Injury
- Our Attorneys
- Success Stories
- Information Center
- Contact
San Antonio Construction Site Dangers
San Antonio, TX Lawyer Michael Grossman Discusses Construction Site Hazards

There are many hazards associated with construction work, and construction companies are required to make sure that their work sites are safe and that the dangers of these hazards are minimized. Unfortunately, many construction companies shirk these responsibilities, resulting in many construction accidents every year. Some of the most common construction site hazards include:
- Exposed pieces of rebar: exposed ends of rebar can impale workers who trip or fall onto them.
- Ladders: ladders that are not properly secured to the ground and the structure on which they are leaning can fall and seriously injure workers on and around the ladders. Additionally, careless workers on the ground can knock a ladder over, causing similar injuries. Some ladders may even be defective and unable to support their specified weight limits.
- Power tool usage: proper training is necessary for the safe operation of power tools. When construction companies do not properly train their workers on their use or when the company allows an untrained worker to use a power tool, every worker on the site is at risk. Poorly maintained or defective power tools can also cause serious injuries, including electrocution or dismemberment. Even properly used, prolonged exposure to power tools can damage a worker’s hearing.
- Scaffolding collapses: scaffolding is a common source of construction accident injuries, typically involved scaffolding collapsing while a worker is on it, potentially injuring that worker and any workers nearby. Scaffolding is usually constructed and set up by a third party, so that organization may be liable for a scaffolding collapse.
- Fall from height: construction companies must provide proper safety harnesses and other equipment if workers are operating at a dangerous height, and companies must ensure that the safety equipment is functioning properly.
- Motor vehicle accidents: car, truck, and other vehicle crashes can cause serious injuries on a construction site or anywhere else. These accidents can include motor vehicles driven by workers or by motorists passing by the construction site.
- Electrocution risk: power tools, poor wiring, and virtually any other source of electricity can pose an electrocution risk if the electrical system is not set up properly, or if workers are careless around sources of electricity.
- Falling objects: objects falling from cranes, upper floors of a building, scaffolding, or any other height can seriously injure a worker, especially if the worker is not wearing a hard hat or other safety equipment.
- Environmental health hazards: these hazards can include anything from asbestos exposure to unsafe chemicals. Even properly handled, these hazards can pose long-term health risks later in life, and construction companies are responsible for minimizing these risks.
Ultimately, construction sites pose a number of risks to workers, and it is difficult to account for all of these dangers. But that does not excuse construction companies from making sure that their workers are safe, despite common practice. When construction companies are negligent and cause injury to a worker, that worker may be eligible to file a construction accident lawsuit.

However, this task can be overwhelming for those without extensive legal experience. Thankfully, construction accident attorney Michael Grossman from Grossman Law Offices has twenty years of experience helping construction workers seek the compensation they deserve. Victims injured in construction accidents will face a number of hurdles. Their employer may have workers’ compensation insurance, or they may pretend to have it, in order to avoid liability. Our attorneys can discover the truth and help you hold your employer responsible. The construction company may also argue that you are a contractor and therefore are not liable to file a work injury suit. But our attorneys can bring up case law that illustrates the establishment of an employer-employee relationship, even in cases where a contract said otherwise. In other words, our firm has the experience needed to overcome the common pitfalls in construction accident cases. We have faced every major insurance carrier and construction company in the country, and these organizations often cooperate fully with our demands for a settlement simply because they are scared to face our lawyers in court. We are dedicated to getting you the compensation you need so that you can get back on your feet. So if you have been injured in a construction accident, contact San Antonio construction accident lawyer Michael Grossman today, and make sure that those responsible for your injuries are brought to justice.
Some of Our Most Recent Successful Cases
$300,000.00 Recovery - Commercial Vehicle Accident / Work Injury (Facial Fractures and Head Trauma)
A loading dock worker suffered serious including numerous facial fractures and minor brain trauma when an 18-wheeler back into him, crushing him against the loading dock. The plaintiff's employer was a subscriber to Texas Workers' Compensation coverage, thus a claim was rightly filed against the third party trucking company whom the truck driver operating the reversing 18-wheeler worked for.
The plaintiffs asserted the position that the trucking company in question was liable on the basis of respondeat superior and negligent retention. The defendants argued that the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his injuries by virtue of the plaintiff putting himself in harms way. They maintained that the plaintiff simply walked behind the reversing tractor trailer as it pushed back toward the loading dock.
It was later determined through deposition testimony that the truck driver had indeed instructed the plaintiff to stand behind the trailer in order to determine the vehicle's proximity to the dock. Once this fact came to light, the defendants agreed to mediate whereby the case was satisfactorily settled.
A loading dock worker suffered serious including numerous facial fractures and minor brain trauma when an 18-wheeler back into him, crushing him against the loading dock. The plaintiff's employer was a subscriber to Texas Workers' Compensation coverage, thus a claim was rightly filed against the third party trucking company whom the truck driver operating the reversing 18-wheeler worked for.
The plaintiffs asserted the position that the trucking company in question was liable on the basis of respondeat superior and negligent retention. The defendants argued that the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his injuries by virtue of the plaintiff putting himself in harms way. They maintained that the plaintiff simply walked behind the reversing tractor trailer as it pushed back toward the loading dock.
It was later determined through deposition testimony that the truck driver had indeed instructed the plaintiff to stand behind the trailer in order to determine the vehicle's proximity to the dock. Once this fact came to light, the defendants agreed to mediate whereby the case was satisfactorily settled.
Total Recovery:
$300,000.00
$300,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$120,000.00
$120,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$9,807.00
$9,807.00
$75,000.00 Recovery - Workplace Accident (Soft-Tissue Injuries)
Recovery for worker who suffered soft tissue injuries when his fork lift was struck by a delivery truck.
Recovery for worker who suffered soft tissue injuries when his fork lift was struck by a delivery truck.
Total Recovery:
$75,000.00
$75,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$25,000.00
$25,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$350.00
$350.00
Confidential Recovery - Wrongful Death / Commercial Vehicle Accident
(policy limits) Our attorneys secured a recovery against a major trucking company for the daughter of a man who was killed after his vehicle collided into an 18-wheeler which was blocking the roadway. Litigation is ongoing against additional defendants.
(policy limits) Our attorneys secured a recovery against a major trucking company for the daughter of a man who was killed after his vehicle collided into an 18-wheeler which was blocking the roadway. Litigation is ongoing against additional defendants.
Total Recovery:
Confidential
Confidential
Attorney Fees:
Confidential
Confidential
Litigation Expenses:
Confidential
Confidential
$550,000.00 Recovery - Wrongful Death / Workers' Compensation Gross Negligence
(policy limits) A father of two was killed on the job when he fell from a personnel platform atop an elevated piece of machinery. The defendant was initially afforded protection from a liability suit by virtue of their workers' comp policy. Upon thorough investigation, it became evident that gross negligence was at the root of the accident, and suit was filed accordingly. A successful outcome was obtained through litigation.
(policy limits) A father of two was killed on the job when he fell from a personnel platform atop an elevated piece of machinery. The defendant was initially afforded protection from a liability suit by virtue of their workers' comp policy. Upon thorough investigation, it became evident that gross negligence was at the root of the accident, and suit was filed accordingly. A successful outcome was obtained through litigation.
Total Recovery:
$550,000.00
$550,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$220,000.00
$220,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$40,000.00
$40,000.00
$550,000.00 Recovery - Workplace Accident (Closed-Head Injury)
A painter fell from an apartment balcony resulting in a closed-head injury and other minor bodily injuries. The case was successfully resolved through litigation against the plaintiff's employer and the general contractor.
A painter fell from an apartment balcony resulting in a closed-head injury and other minor bodily injuries. The case was successfully resolved through litigation against the plaintiff's employer and the general contractor.
Total Recovery:
$550,000.00
$550,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$220,000.00
$220,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$20,465.00
$20,465.00
$125,000.00 Recovery - Workplace Accident (Closed-Head Injury)
Recovery for injured worker who suffered a closed head injury in a scaffolding accident.
Recovery for injured worker who suffered a closed head injury in a scaffolding accident.
Total Recovery:
$125,000.00
$125,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$30,000.00
$30,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$2,135.00
$2,135.00
$1,450,000.00 Recovery - Commercial Vehicle Accident (Brain Injury)
Our firm was hired by a delivery driver who suffered a closed head injury resulting in the permanent loss of smell in a head-on accident. The incident occurred as the driver of an 18-wheeler lost control of his vehicle and veered into oncoming traffic. Our client's delivery vehicle was struck head-on, causing massive damage to both vehicles.
Our client was taken to an area hospital where he was treated for minor bodily injuries and a closed head injury which originally manifested itself as a concussion and temporary memory loss.
Suit was filed against the defendants following their failure to respond to our correspondence in a timely manner and litigation began. Included in the suit were both the defendant truck driver and his employer. The results of our investigation and the physical evidence from the accident scene made it apparent that the defendants had indeed caused the accident. Defense counsel soon conceded liability
Our firm was hired by a delivery driver who suffered a closed head injury resulting in the permanent loss of smell in a head-on accident. The incident occurred as the driver of an 18-wheeler lost control of his vehicle and veered into oncoming traffic. Our client's delivery vehicle was struck head-on, causing massive damage to both vehicles.
Our client was taken to an area hospital where he was treated for minor bodily injuries and a closed head injury which originally manifested itself as a concussion and temporary memory loss.
Suit was filed against the defendants following their failure to respond to our correspondence in a timely manner and litigation began. Included in the suit were both the defendant truck driver and his employer. The results of our investigation and the physical evidence from the accident scene made it apparent that the defendants had indeed caused the accident. Defense counsel soon conceded liability
Total Recovery:
$1,450,000.00
$1,450,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$560,000.00
$560,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$31,410.00
$31,410.00
$150,000.00 Recovery - Wrongful Death / Workplace Accident
(policy limits) Recovery of a disputed life insurance policy for the family of a contractor who died on the job.
(policy limits) Recovery of a disputed life insurance policy for the family of a contractor who died on the job.
Total Recovery:
$150,000.00
$150,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$50,000.00
$50,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$341.00
$341.00
$335,000.00 Recovery - Wrongful Death/ Commercial Vehicle Accident
The mother of a young man hired our firm to investigate the death of her son following a fatal car accident. The incident occurred as one of the two vehicles involved ran a red light and drive into the path of the other. The defendant was driving a work vehicle for a construction company. The defendant survived the accident and stated to police that the decedent caused the accident. The police could not conclusively determine who was at fault, yet the police report strongly implied that the decedent was likely at fault based on the statement provided by the defendant.
The plaintiff's mother was not convinced. Through a thorough investigation, we ultimately determined that the stoplight that the defendant claimed that our client ran, in fact, worked on a timer whereby the light was always green between certain hours unless a vehicle traveling on the intersecting road had been stopped at the right light for more than 30 seconds. Based on an analysis of the vehicles and tire markings, it was conclusively determined that both vehicles were traveling at the speed limit, which clearly indicates that the defendant driver had not accelerated from stop, rather, he was traveling at the speed limit, which would not have triggered a green light for the defendant.
The logical implications of this information is that the light could not have been red for the plaintiff, and it certainly would have been red for the defendant. As a consequence of this information, the case was resolved through litigation.
The mother of a young man hired our firm to investigate the death of her son following a fatal car accident. The incident occurred as one of the two vehicles involved ran a red light and drive into the path of the other. The defendant was driving a work vehicle for a construction company. The defendant survived the accident and stated to police that the decedent caused the accident. The police could not conclusively determine who was at fault, yet the police report strongly implied that the decedent was likely at fault based on the statement provided by the defendant.
The plaintiff's mother was not convinced. Through a thorough investigation, we ultimately determined that the stoplight that the defendant claimed that our client ran, in fact, worked on a timer whereby the light was always green between certain hours unless a vehicle traveling on the intersecting road had been stopped at the right light for more than 30 seconds. Based on an analysis of the vehicles and tire markings, it was conclusively determined that both vehicles were traveling at the speed limit, which clearly indicates that the defendant driver had not accelerated from stop, rather, he was traveling at the speed limit, which would not have triggered a green light for the defendant.
The logical implications of this information is that the light could not have been red for the plaintiff, and it certainly would have been red for the defendant. As a consequence of this information, the case was resolved through litigation.
Total Recovery:
$335,000.00
$335,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$134,000.00
$134,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$63,000.00
$63,000.00
$226,000.00 Recovery - Workplace Accident (Shoulder Injury Requiring Surgery)
Our attorneys were hired by a delivery driver who sustained a serious shoulder injury when a worker for a third party negligently operated a fork lift. The accident occurred as the plaintiff delivered a load of hay bails to a commercial farm.
An employee of said facility attempted to unload the trailer with a forklift. In doing so, he pushed several bales of hay off of the flatbed, over the side opposite the forklift. Consequently, several of the 400 lb (est.) bales of hay struck the plaintiff who was working to disconnect tie downs on the opposite side of the trailer. This resulted in serious injury to the plaintiff's shoulder.
The defendants took an aggressive stance and denied the claim, asserting that the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his own injuries by virtue of the fact that he was standing in a known dangerous area. Suit was filed soon thereafter. Our attorneys argued that the plaintiff's ordinary work duties, and indeed the normal protocol for all flatbed delivery drivers, consists of letting loose the materials to be unloaded. We maintained that the true cause of the plaintiff's injuries was that the forklift operator rushed into unloading the trailer.
Furthermore, the manner in which he unloaded the trailer was itself a contributing element of the defendant's negligence. The forks that were incorporated into the forklift in question were not compatible with stabbing hay bails; they were ordinary forks that were designed to be positioned below a heavy object that was to be lifted. The case was successfully resolved in mediation.
Our attorneys were hired by a delivery driver who sustained a serious shoulder injury when a worker for a third party negligently operated a fork lift. The accident occurred as the plaintiff delivered a load of hay bails to a commercial farm.
An employee of said facility attempted to unload the trailer with a forklift. In doing so, he pushed several bales of hay off of the flatbed, over the side opposite the forklift. Consequently, several of the 400 lb (est.) bales of hay struck the plaintiff who was working to disconnect tie downs on the opposite side of the trailer. This resulted in serious injury to the plaintiff's shoulder.
The defendants took an aggressive stance and denied the claim, asserting that the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his own injuries by virtue of the fact that he was standing in a known dangerous area. Suit was filed soon thereafter. Our attorneys argued that the plaintiff's ordinary work duties, and indeed the normal protocol for all flatbed delivery drivers, consists of letting loose the materials to be unloaded. We maintained that the true cause of the plaintiff's injuries was that the forklift operator rushed into unloading the trailer.
Furthermore, the manner in which he unloaded the trailer was itself a contributing element of the defendant's negligence. The forks that were incorporated into the forklift in question were not compatible with stabbing hay bails; they were ordinary forks that were designed to be positioned below a heavy object that was to be lifted. The case was successfully resolved in mediation.
Total Recovery:
$226,000.00
$226,000.00
Attorney Fees:
$84,000.00
$84,000.00
Litigation Expenses:
$5,500.00
$5,500.00



