×

Mayville Seeks Dismissal Of Contractor’s Injury Lawsuit

The village of Mayville is seeking to have a lawsuit filed in state Supreme Court against the village in 2022 dismissed.

Eric Winship of Steamburg was part of a crew working on a water line in Mayville on Maple Drive East in May 2021. He alleges a Mayville employee told him there was no pressure in the water line when Winship and a supervisor were trying to determine if it was safe to remove the water line cap. The Steamburg man says the water line exploded due to pressure in the line when the cap was removed, injuring Winship’s left leg.

“Upon information and belief, the negligence of the defendant consisted of causing and allowing a dangerous condition upon the property; failure to relieve pressure on the water line; failure to notify, warn and/or alert the plaintiff of the existence of said dangerous condition; failing to remedy said dangerous condition; failing to adhere to safety policies, procedures and codes, all with the actual and/or constructive knowledge of said dangerous condition and the defendant were otherwise careless and negligent,” the 2022 filing states.

The lawsuit had been ruled timely in 2021 by former state Supreme Court Justice Lynn Keane. Other than procedural filings it was the last action on the case until late October, when the village filed to have the case dismissed. Attorney Jesse G. Hoelscher, an attorney from Webster Szanyi LLP in Buffalo representing the village, argues Winship’s complaint should be dismissed because Winship was the cause of the accident, the village didn’t control Winship’s work and the village did not create or contribute to the alleged defective condition in the water pipe. Hoelscher said Winship testified during an examination that he didn’t know air could go through a valve, that the supervisor on the job told Winship they were going to remove the cap and that the supervisor told Winship to proceed. Hoelscher also said in his affirmation to the court that the village’s chief water operator said he did not supervise independent contractors or work alongside them.

“The village now moves for summary judgment because plaintiff improperly includes theories of liability not included in his notice of claim; plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his accident, no landowner liability can attach given the village lacked actual and constructive notice of, and did not create or contribute to, the alleged condition; and the village did not have authority to supervise or control plaintiff’s work; requiring dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint in its entirety.”

Starting at $2.99/week.

Subscribe Today