Security firm and estate of deceased motorist sued over injuries to bridge workers

By Jon Campisi | Dec 5, 2012

Two North Jersey men who were injured by a speeding vehicle while working to refurbish a Philadelphia-area bridge have filed suit against the estate of the vehicle’s driver, who perished in the accident, and the firm that was charged with securing the worksite.

Fabrico Frozza and Ednaldo Gomes, both of Newark, N.J., are suing Harrisburg-based Protection Services Inc. and Philadelphia resident Chontea Kyli Scott.

Scott is the administratrix of the estate of the late Taj Ellworth Scott, who died in the early morning hours of Feb. 6 of this year after his vehicle collided with a boom on which the plaintiffs were standing while they were working to repaint the Platt Memorial Bridge.

The plaintiffs were employed by Hercules Painting/Vimas Painting JV LLC, which had secured the contract to repaint the bridge, a heavily used Philadelphia commuter span.

The complaint, which was filed Nov. 30 at Philadelphia’s Common Pleas Court by local attorneys Jeffrey R. Lessin and Mark T. Richter, states that Taj Ellworth Scott was driving a 2006 Cadillac at about 1:15 in the morning on Feb. 6 in such a “negligent and careless manner, so as to cause his vehicle to impact with the boom occupied by Plaintiffs,” an act that sent the two workers flying off the boom and onto the bridge bed.

The impact resulted in Scott’s death and caused the two plaintiffs to sustain physical injuries to various parts of their bodies, as well as mental anguish, the lawsuit claims.

The suit also alleges that both plaintiffs incurred various medical expenses to treat their injuries.

The lawsuit contains negligence counts against both Taj Ellworth Scott and Protection Services Inc.

Scott is accused of failing to keep his vehicle under proper and adequate control, failing to keep a careful and diligent watch on the highway, traveling at an excessive rate of speed and/or too fast for conditions, and operating his vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and/or other drugs.

The protection services firm, which was tasked with providing security and safety for bridge workers and the general public, namely by setting up long-term and temporary traffic control signs on the bridge, is faulted for failing to erect proper signage, barricades and/or traffic control devices to notify drivers that the bridge was closed at the time of the accident; failing to close the bridge while work was being performed on the span; failing to prevent drivers from accessing the bridge when it was closed; failing to hire and/or train adequate personnel; and other acts of negligence.

The plaintiffs seek more than $50,000 in compensatory damages, in addition to interest, delay damages and costs.


The case ID number is 121103156.

More News

The Record Network