Chemical Poisoning | Galindo v. Burdette & Sons Enterprise Inc;
October 11, 2024 | Article by Chain | Cohn | Clark staff | Current Cases Social Share
The defendant was hired to fumigate and tent a home in southeast Bakersfield. During the fumigation process, a worker noted that the equipment to ventilate, suction and remove the fumigant that was in place was not operating, and determined that the equipment to ventilate, suction and remove the fumigant caused the breaker to go out at home. However, workers did not break the seal to the premises to reset the breaker and restart the equipment.
Shortly after, workers returned to remove the tents and advised the plaintiff that it was safe to enter. Less than 10 minutes inside of the home, the plaintiff began to feel a burning sensation in his eyes, throat, and nose, and was having difficulty breathing. He went to the emergency room with a bloody nose, spitting out blood clots, a severe headache, vomiting, film in throat and difficulty breathing. A physician at the emergency room informed the plaintiff that he had fumigation chemical poisoning. Thereafter, he sought further medical treatment for the severe injuries sustained as a result of the fumigation chemical poisoning.