Mayville Seeks Dismissal of Contractor’s Injury Suit | News, Sports, Jobs

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

Eric Winship of Steamburg was part of a crew working on a water line on Maple Drive East in Mayville in May 2021. Winship and a supervisor allege that while they were trying to determine if there was pressure, a Mayville employee told them there was no pressure in the water line. It was safe to remove the water line cap. The Steamburg man said when the cap was removed, the water line burst due to pressure in the line, injuring Winship’s left leg.

“Upon information and belief, the defendant’s negligence consisted of causing and permitting a hazardous condition on the property; inability to relieve pressure in the water line; failure to inform, warn and/or warn the plaintiff about the existence of the dangerous situation in question; failure to correct the dangerous situation in question; Failure to comply with security policies, procedures and rules with actual and/or constructive knowledge of the dangerous situation in question, and the defendant otherwise acting carelessly and negligently.” 2022 application status.

The case was decided in a timely manner in 2021 by former state Supreme Court Justice Lynn Keane. Other than procedural filings, this was the last hearing on the case until late October, when the village filed to have the case dismissed. Attorney Jesse G. Hoelscher of Webster Szanyi LLP in Buffalo, who represents the village, argues that Winship’s complaint should be dismissed because Winship was the cause of the accident, the village did not control Winship’s business and the village did not contribute to the accident. alleged defective condition of the water pipe. Hoelscher testified that Winship did not know that air could pass through a valve during the inspection, that the supervisor at work told Winship that he would remove the valve, and that the supervisor told Winship to continue. Hoelscher also said in his statement to the court that the village’s chief water operator said he did not supervise or work with independent contractors.

“The village now moves for summary judgment because plaintiff improperly incorporates theories of liability not included in the notice of claim; Given that the plaintiff was the only proximate cause of the accident, the village failed to give actual and constructive notice of the alleged condition, and did not create or contribute to the alleged condition, no liability can be imputed to any landowner; and the village had no authority to supervise or control plaintiff’s business; It requires complete rejection of the plaintiff’s complaint.”