A New York Supreme Court judge ruled on March 31, 2026, in the case of Medina v. AquaFence USA, Inc., determining liability in a complex construction accident involving a flood barrier system. The decision impacts the parties involved, particularly the plaintiff Andre Medina, who suffered injuries during the incident, and several companies linked to the design and installation of the AquaFence system. This ruling is significant as it addresses issues of product liability and workplace safety during adverse weather conditions.
The case arose after Medina, a porter employed by PBM, LLC, was injured while attempting to secure hurricane barriers during Hurricane Isaias. The barriers were part of the AquaFence flood barrier system, designed to protect buildings from flooding. The court's decision delves into the responsibilities of AquaFence, PBM, and other parties involved in the deployment and maintenance of the system.
The dispute began when Medina filed a lawsuit against AquaFence USA, Inc., AquaFence AS, AquaFence SIA Latvia, One State Street, LLC, and ACTA Realty Corp, doing business as The Wolfson Group, claiming damages for personal injuries sustained during the storm. The case was filed under Index No. 31214/2020E and was presided over by Judge Matthew Parker-Raso in the Bronx County Supreme Court.
Medina's injuries occurred while he was sent to assist with the deployment of the AquaFence system, which was being used for the first time during an actual storm. The barriers were not anchored, as recommended, and Medina was struck by one of the flying panels, resulting in serious injuries. The AquaFence system was marketed as not requiring anchoring, but evidence suggested that anchors were necessary under certain conditions, particularly in high winds.
In the ruling, the court addressed multiple motions from the parties involved. The AquaFence defendants sought to dismiss Medina's claims, arguing that the system was safe and that the accident was caused by PBM's failure to install anchors. The court noted that the AquaFence defendants had not met their burden of proving that the product was reasonably safe without the anchors, as required by law.
Judge Parker-Raso stated, "The conflicting opinions cited above present a battle of the experts for the jury to resolve." This indicates that the court found sufficient evidence to allow the case to proceed to trial, where a jury will determine the facts surrounding the accident and the liability of each party involved.
Additionally, the court addressed claims of failure to warn, stating that AquaFence had a duty to provide adequate warnings about the risks associated with using the flood barriers without anchors. The judge noted that the language in the product manual did not sufficiently indicate the necessity of anchors in high wind situations, which contributed to the dangerous conditions during Medina's accident.
The court also considered the issue of negligent installation and maintenance, determining that AquaFence could be held liable for failing to ensure that the system was safely deployed. The AquaFence defendants argued that they had no duty to Medina, as they were not present during the incident. However, the court found that AquaFence's role in designing and selling the system created a responsibility to ensure its safe use.
This ruling has significant implications for the parties involved. For Medina, it means that he may have the opportunity to present his case in front of a jury, potentially leading to compensation for his injuries. For AquaFence and the other defendants, the decision underscores the importance of ensuring that safety measures are in place and that users are adequately informed about the risks associated with their products.
Looking ahead, the case may set a precedent for future product liability claims involving construction and safety equipment. It emphasizes the need for manufacturers to provide clear warnings and to ensure that their products are safe under the conditions in which they will be used.
The AquaFence defendants may appeal the court's decision, but for now, the case will proceed to trial, where the jury will ultimately determine the outcome. The ruling highlights the complexities of liability in construction accidents, especially when multiple parties are involved, each with their own responsibilities and potential negligence.