Choose the correct answer.

A NEGLIGENCE CLAIM IN NEW YORK STATE COURT
A recent negligence claim has been brought before the New York State Court involving a construction company and a former employee.

The employee, Mr. John Smith, worked for Alpha Construction Inc. from January 2018 until his termination in June 2023. Mr. Smith alleges that he was injured due to the company’s reckless negligent careless irresponsible (1 p.) disregard for safety regulations at a construction site in Brooklyn.

In his testimony, Mr. Smith stated that the injury occurred in May 2023 when he was instructed to operate a crane without proper training or certification. As a result, he suffered a severe back injury, leading to chronic pain and restricted limited curbed hindered (1 p.) mobility. Mr. Smith claims that the company failed to provide adequate safety equipment and ignored numerous safety warnings from employees.

Alpha Construction Inc., the defendant in this case, argues that Mr. Smith was provided with all necessary safety gear and that he had consistently frequently occasionally rarely (1 p.) followed the company’s safety protocols. The defense further claims that Mr. Smith’s injury was due to his own carelessness negligence imprudence misconduct (1 p.) and not the company’s fault.

Mr. Smith is suing Alpha Construction Inc. for $150,000 to cover medical expenses, lost wages, and compensation for “pain and agony misery discomfort suffering (1 p.) .” He also seeks damages for what he describes as the company’s “willful and intentional unplanned inadvertent malicious (1 p.) disregard for employee safety.”

The defense counsel for Alpha Construction Inc. contends that Mr. Smith’s allegations are fabricated exaggerated amplified baseless (1 p.) and that the company has always prioritized safety. They also argue that Mr. Smith was dismissed from his position due to poor performance and frequent violations of safety rules, not as retaliation for his injury claims.

The core issue in this case revolves around whether Alpha Construction Inc. breached violated transgressed disregarded (1 p.) its duty of care to ensure a safe working environment and whether Mr. Smith’s injury was a direct result of any such breach. The company maintains that all safety measures were in place and that Mr. Smith’s injury was an unfortunate accident, exacerbated by his failure to comply conform adhere abide (1 p.) by safety regulations.

Judge Emily Harrison has reserved saved retained conserved (1 p.) her ruling in the case until all evidence and testimonies have been thoroughly reviewed.