$275,000 Settlement: How a New Hampshire Construction Accident Lawyer Secured a Recovery After an Unwitnessed Jobsite Injury

This case study explains how Apis Law secured a $275,000 settlement despite the absence of eyewitnesses, video, and an OSHA investigation, as well as a six-year delay before key evidence could be reconstructed.

Apis Law secured this result through intensive litigation work, including nine depositions, four experts, and the reduction of a nearly $197,000 workers’ compensation lien down to $55,000, substantially increasing the client’s net recovery.

Case Summary

Apis Law represented a tradesperson injured on a multi-employer commercial construction project in New Hampshire. The client was completing routine finishing work inside an unfinished hotel when a stack of large tempered-glass panels, collectively weighing more than 700 pounds, collapsed and crushed the client’s leg.

Because there were no witnesses and no video, the client came to the firm with a construction accident case that insurers often reject outright or pay little to nothing for settlement value in New Hampshire. The extent of injury included a tibial plateau fracture, multiple surgeries, and permanent functional impairment.

Key Facts and Background

The accident occurred inside a guest room under the control of a general contractor overseeing numerous subcontractors. Several oversized tempered-glass panels had been leaned vertically against a wall at a slight angle, without restraints, signage, barriers, or exclusion zones. The room had no finished door, and laborers were directed to move freely through the space to complete painting and drywall tasks.

The client entered the room to prepare for ceiling work. As a drop cloth was placed near the glass stack, the panels suddenly rotated and slammed forward. The weight of the sheets pinned the client to the floor, causing a crushing injury to the knee and lower leg.

Critical facts shaped the litigation:

• No eyewitnesses saw the panels begin to fall.

• No surveillance footage captured events inside the room.

• OSHA was never called, despite the overnight hospitalization and severity of the injury.

• Construction progressed rapidly after the incident, erasing key physical evidence.

• The accident occurred six years before litigation, requiring reconstruction through documents, memory, and expert modeling.

Legal Issues and Challenges for a

Construction Accident Liability Case

This case presented unusually difficult liability challenges:

Unwitnessed Accident With No Video Evidence

Defendants argued that without visual evidence, the cause of the collapse could not be proven. They attempted to shift blame to the worker, suggesting the client must have “pulled” or “moved” the glass.

Control and Responsibility

Both the general contractor and the subcontractor denied control of the hazardous condition. Each pointed at the other to avoid OSHA-level duties and contractual safety obligations.

Passage of Time

Six years elapsed between the incident and the depositions. Memory faded. Witnesses relocated. Documents were archived or missing. Defendants relied heavily on the age of the case to weaken the workers’ claims.

Medical Causation

Due to delays and gaps in follow-up care, defendants challenged whether all permanent impairments were attributable to the initial trauma.

Workers’ Compensation Lien

The comp carrier asserted a lien of approximately $197,000, raising the risk that any settlement would be significantly reduced unless aggressively negotiated.

Each of these hurdles required a structured, evidence-driven litigation plan.

Strategy and Litigation Approach

Apis Law built the case from the ground up.

Comprehensive Fact Development

With no eyewitness testimony, the firm conducted a deep investigation:

• Nine depositions of superintendents, foremen, tradespeople, and safety personnel

• Review of thousands of pages of construction logs, Job Hazard Analyses (JHAs), safety manuals, digital project-management records, and subcontract agreements

• Reconstruction of the room layout through architectural drawings, punch lists, and progress photos

Multidisciplinary Experts

Given the lack of direct evidence, expert analysis became central. Apis Law retained:

• Certified Industrial Safety Expert – Evaluated OSHA violations and safety failures.

• Physicist – Modeled the angle, mass, and lateral-force thresholds, showing the panels could tip with as little as ~14 pounds of pressure.

• Orthopedic Surgeon – Provided medical causation testimony linking the injury to long-term impairment and the likelihood of future total knee replacement.

• Life-Care Planner – Documented long-term costs exceeding $160,000.

Overcoming Defense Comparative Fault Arguments

The physics reconstruction proved decisively that the glass was inherently unstable, leaned at approximately 1.3–5 degrees at rest, and could collapse from a light touch or even movement of air or fabric. This eliminated the defense theory that the worker caused the incident through negligence.

Lien Negotiation

The firm secured a reduction of the workers’ compensation lien from $197,000 to $55,000, recovering more than $140,000 in value for the client’s net proceeds.

Trial Readiness

Throughout the litigation, the firm prepared the case as though it would go to trial. Defendants fought aggressively, producing documents late and resisting expert disclosures. Apis Law pressed forward, survived motion practice, and positioned the case for a favorable resolution shortly before trial.

Outcome and Settlement of a

New Hampshire Construction Accident Case

The case resolved for $275,000, reflecting both the severity of the client’s orthopedic injury and the strength of the reconstructed liability case.

Equally important, Apis Law’s lien reduction—cutting a $197,000 workers’ compensation lien down to $55,000—significantly increased the client’s net recovery.

The result came after years of litigation, nine depositions, four experts, and extensive documentary analysis.

Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Every case depends on its own facts and circumstances.

What This Case Means for New Hampshire Clients

Construction-site injury cases are unlike ordinary accidents. This case highlights several key lessons:

• Early preservation matters. Evidence disappears quickly on construction sites. Without a lawyer demanding preservation, crucial documents can be lost forever.

• Unwitnessed accidents can still be won. Expert reconstruction can establish liability even when no one saw the incident.

• General contractors owe broad safety duties. New Hampshire law holds contractors accountable when they retain control over site conditions.

• Lien reduction is a critical part of maximizing recovery. A large settlement is meaningless if the client receives little after reimbursement obligations.

• Complex cases require persistence. Six years had passed before key depositions occurred. A lesser effort could have resulted in a denied claim.

For New Hampshire construction workers, this case demonstrates the importance of experienced litigation counsel who can manage experts, sift through technical documents, and present a cohesive causal narrative without direct eyewitness evidence. In New Hampshire, you need an experienced construction accident lawyer.

How Our Firm Handles Cases Like This

Apis Law approaches construction-site injury cases with disciplined investigation, aggressive litigation posture, and readiness for trial. The firm regularly handles personal injury matters throughout New Hampshire, including Manchester, Goffstown, Bedford, and Hillsborough County.

For workers injured on complex multi-employer sites, the firm gathers safety records, contracts, digital logs, and expert analysis early—long before defendants are ready. This preparation helps level the playing field against general contractors, large insurers, and national defense firms.

To discuss a construction injury in New Hampshire, potential clients are invited to contact the firm for a consultation.

These results are based on the specific facts of this matter. Past outcomes do not guarantee future results. This article is for informational purposes only and does not create an attorney–client relationship.