The Savannah River Site’s management and operations contractor wants a federal judge to dismiss a lawsuit that claims the company is responsible for injuries an employee suffered while working on a trailer.
In the Nov. 29 response to a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for South Carolina, lawyers for Savannah River Nuclear Solutions (SRNS) wrote that Henry Bradley’s allegations are misguided because the company was not responsible for the piece of equipment that injured him. The contractor is a partnership of Fluor, Honeywell, and Stoller Newport News Nuclear.
Bradley works for the site’s liquid waste contractor, Savannah River Remediation (SRR). In November 2015, he was securing a load of unidentified waste material to the floor of a trailer so he could haul it off, according to his Nov. 7 lawsuit. While doing this, he fell through a hole in “rotted wood,” causing injuries to his spine, groin, and right shoulder, according to his Nov. 7 lawsuit.
Bradley said hi injuries have caused him to accumulate more than $66,000 in medical expenses and have limited his ability to work. From SRNS, he is seeking at least $75,000, payment of all legal fees, and a trial by jury. His employer, SRR, is not named as a defendant in the lawsuit.
In the contractor’s response to the suit, the legal team did not deny the fact that SRNS owns the trailer. However, they said the trailer was not in the company’s possession at the time of the incident. Savannah River Remediation often borrows these trailers to haul material, as was the case in this instance.
“Trailer 0152 was in the possession and control of Plaintiff’s employer, Savannah River Remediation, and Defendant was wholly reliant upon Savannah River Remediation and other Savannah River Remediation employees to alert Defendant of any deficiencies or problems with the trailer,” according to the response.
Savannah River Nuclear Solutions also said Bradley was required to inspect the trailer before and after use. “If Trailer 0152 was damaged such that it should not have been utilized for the purposes in which it was being used, Plaintiff himself should have identified the defect during his inspection,” according to the motion to dismiss.
