The Warning Sign Said Keep Out.
The Insurance Company Said She Had No Case.
We Got Her $575,000.
A Chinese immigrant working at a Brooklyn clothing factory lost her fingers in an industrial machine. The insurer pointed to a warning sign and said that ended the conversation. It did not. Here is what happened — and what every hardworking immigrant in Brooklyn needs to know about their rights.
This Is a Story You Have Probably Heard Before
She came to Brooklyn to work. Like so many immigrants in this city, she showed up every single day at a garment factory — sewing, cutting, operating heavy industrial equipment — doing work that keeps this city clothed and this economy moving. She was not looking for trouble. She was not distracted. She was doing her job.
The machine got jammed. Debris had caught in it, which happened regularly. She did what she had done before — what workers at that factory routinely did — and reached in to clear it. In an instant, the machine caught her hand. By the time it was over, her fingers were gone.
The insurance company did not send a condolence card. They sent a denial letter. Their argument? There was a warning sign on that machine. A large, visible, clearly worded warning sign — specific to exactly this kind of hand injury. Their lawyers were confident. If she knew the risk and reached in anyway, the argument goes, that is on her.
Here is why they were wrong. And here is why she received $575,000.
A Warning Sign Is Not a Get-Out-of-Jail-Free Card
This is one of the most dangerous myths in workplace injury law: that posting a warning sign on something dangerous means the owner or manufacturer can walk away clean. New York courts have dealt with this argument directly — and rejected it.
The starting point in New York is a landmark decision from 1976 that changed how courts think about machine injuries forever:
Paul Micallef was a printing press operator who stuck his hand into a running press to remove a foreign particle — a routine practice at his workplace. He knew the machine was dangerous. The danger was completely obvious. The manufacturer argued that because the risk was "patent" (meaning open and obvious), they had no liability. The New York Court of Appeals disagreed. The court eliminated what was known as the "patent danger rule" — the old idea that if a danger is obvious, a manufacturer owes no duty of care. Instead, the court held that manufacturers have a duty to design products that avoid unreasonable risks of harm, even when those risks are visible to the user. A warning about a known danger does not, by itself, relieve the manufacturer of responsibility for failing to design a safer machine.
This was the foundation we built on. A warning sign tells a worker that something is dangerous. It does not tell a jury that the machine was reasonably designed, properly guarded, or that the employer adequately trained its workers on safe clearing procedures. Those are separate questions — and they all point to separate liability.
The second case that shaped our argument was decided more than two decades later, and it involved a situation almost identical to hers:
Luis Liriano was a 17-year-old grocery store employee who lost his right hand and forearm in a commercial meat grinder. The safety guard had been removed by his employer. He sued the manufacturer. The manufacturer argued that the danger of sticking your hand into a meat grinder is obvious — no one needs a warning for that. The New York Court of Appeals held that even where a danger might appear obvious, a manufacturer can still be liable for failure to warn if they knew users were operating the machine in a dangerous way and failed to adequately warn against it. The court made clear: obvious danger does not substitute for a meaningful warning, and the presence of a warning sign does not automatically satisfy the manufacturer's duty if the warning fails to change behavior or if other safety measures could have prevented the injury.
Injured at a Brooklyn factory or job site? Do not let an insurance company tell you what your rights are. Call Koenig Pierre for a free consultation — he will tell you the truth.
Free Consultation →What We Argued — And Why It Worked
The insurance company's warning sign defense was strong on the surface. The sign was big. It was specific. It warned about exactly the kind of hand injury that occurred. In a vacuum, that looks like a compelling case for the defense.
But liability does not exist in a vacuum. We argued several things in parallel:
1. The machine lacked adequate safety guards
A warning sign is not a safety guard. Under New York Labor Law and OSHA regulations governing industrial machinery, employers are required to provide physical safeguards — not just paper warnings — to protect workers from the moving parts of machines. The machine in question should have had an interlock or guard that prevented anyone from reaching into the dangerous area while it was operational. It did not. A sign that says "danger" does not replace an automatic shutoff. It does not replace a guard. It does not replace proper machine design.
2. Clearing debris was a routine, known, and employer-sanctioned practice
This is the part the insurance company did not want anyone to look at too closely. Workers at this factory routinely cleared debris from this machine by hand. It was standard operating procedure — not a rogue act by a careless employee. Management knew it happened. Management had not stopped it, provided tools to do it safely, or retrained workers on an alternative method. Under both Micallef and Liriano, when an employer knows that workers regularly interact with a machine in a dangerous way and does nothing to address it, that knowledge matters enormously to liability.
3. The warning sign did not prevent the harm — and the employer knew it would not
A warning is only meaningful if it leads to a safer outcome. If workers read a warning every day and then do the dangerous thing anyway because their job requires it, the warning has failed its purpose. The legal question courts ask is not "was there a sign?" but "would a different warning, or a different safety measure, have changed what happened?" Here, the answer was yes. Proper machine guarding would have prevented this injury entirely. The sign did not come close to doing the same job.
4. She did not assume the risk of a preventable injury
New York abolished the doctrine of primary assumption of risk in workplace settings. Under New York's pure comparative negligence framework, even if a worker bears some responsibility for their own injury, that only reduces their recovery — it does not eliminate it. The insurance company tried to argue that by reaching into the machine, she assumed all the risk. That is not what New York law says. New York law says we weigh everyone's responsibility and allocate accordingly.
"A warning sign tells a worker something is dangerous. It does not tell a jury the machine was reasonably designed, properly guarded, or that workers were given a safe way to do their jobs."
— Koenig Pierre, Esq.Workers' Compensation Was Not Enough — And It Never Is
She had workers' compensation coverage. In New York, most employers are required to carry it. Workers' comp paid for some of her medical treatment and a portion of her lost wages. That is what it is designed to do.
But workers' compensation does not pay for pain and suffering. It does not pay for what it means to lose your fingers. It does not pay for the way your life changes when you can no longer work with your hands in the way you once could. It does not pay for the emotional toll, the nightmares, the permanent disfigurement. Workers' comp is a floor — not a ceiling.
Because the machine manufacturer and the factory owner were separate parties (a common arrangement in industrial settings), we were able to pursue a third-party personal injury claim alongside the workers' comp claim. This is a critical distinction that many injured workers do not know about. When your employer's workers' comp coverage is not the only avenue — when a manufacturer, property owner, contractor, or equipment company contributed to your injury — you may be able to sue them directly for the full range of damages. That is how we got to $575,000.
If you were hurt on the job and someone told you "just file workers' comp," please read this again. Workers' comp may be the beginning of your case, not the end of it. Call an attorney who knows the difference. You can learn more about construction and industrial accident claims in New York on our website.
Hurt on the Job in Brooklyn?
Workers' comp may only be the beginning. If a machine, a manufacturer, or a property owner contributed to your injury, there may be a third-party claim worth far more. Find out — for free.
Get a Free Case Review Or call: 1-800-946-4616 · No fee unless we winIf You Are an Immigrant Worker in Brooklyn, This Case Was About You Too
Let me be direct. This client was a Chinese immigrant working in a Brooklyn garment factory. She was not confident about her legal options. She was not sure whether her immigration status would affect her ability to bring a claim. She was not sure whether an insurance company would take her seriously. She was afraid that fighting back would make things worse.
Every one of those fears is something that insurance companies count on. They depend on workers not knowing their rights. They depend on language barriers, on unfamiliarity with the legal system, on the anxiety that comes with being an immigrant in a country where the rules are not always explained to you.
So let me say this clearly:
In New York, your immigration status does not affect your right to workers' compensation or your right to bring a personal injury lawsuit. You have the same rights as any other worker on this island. The courts do not ask where you were born. The law does not ask for your papers. What the law asks is whether you were injured due to someone else's negligence — and if the answer is yes, you are entitled to compensation. Full stop.
Koenig Pierre speaks English, Spanish, and Haitian Creole. Our office works with interpreters and community members who understand the barriers that immigrant workers face. If you need help in your language, we will find a way to communicate clearly and make sure you understand every step of what is happening with your case.
A Message to Brooklyn's Hardworking Communities
Whether you work in a factory in Bushwick, a restaurant in Flatbush, a construction site in Canarsie, a warehouse in East New York, a laundry in Crown Heights, a shop in Midwood, or anywhere along the boardwalk in Coney Island — if you were hurt on the job, you have rights.
Insurance companies have lawyers. Employers have lawyers. Factory owners have lawyers. You deserve one too.
No matter where you live or where you work in Brooklyn — call Koenig Pierre at 1-800-946-4616. Free consultation. No fee unless we win. Se habla español. Nou pale Kreyòl.
What You Should Do Right Now If You Were Injured at Work
Time matters more than most people realize. Evidence disappears. Machines get repaired or replaced. Witnesses forget. And in some cases — particularly if a government entity is involved — you have as little as 90 days to file a Notice of Claim. Here is what to do:
Get medical care immediately. Your health comes first, and your medical records will become the backbone of your case. Do not minimize your injuries to a doctor. Tell them everything.
Report the injury to your employer in writing. Do not just tell your supervisor — put it in writing. Email, text, or a written note. You need a record that your employer knew about the injury.
Photograph everything. The machine. The area. The warning sign. Any missing guards. Your injuries. Do this before anything is cleaned up or moved.
Do not sign anything from the insurance company. Insurance adjusters are trained to get you to accept less than you deserve, as quickly as possible. Do not give a recorded statement. Do not accept a settlement offer. Call an attorney first.
Call Koenig Pierre. The consultation is free. He will look at the facts of your case and tell you honestly what your options are — including whether a third-party claim is available, what your workers' comp rights are, and what the case might actually be worth. You have nothing to lose by making the call.
Questions Workers Ask About Factory and Machine Injuries in New York
Not automatically. Under New York law established in Micallef v. Miehle Co., 39 N.Y.2d 376 (1976), the mere presence of a warning sign does not relieve a manufacturer or employer of liability. Courts look at whether the machine was reasonably safe in its design, whether workers were properly trained, whether safety guards were in place, and whether the work procedure itself was dangerous. A warning sign is one factor — not the whole story.
Yes, in many cases. Workers' compensation covers your medical bills and a portion of lost wages, but it does not compensate you for pain and suffering. If a third party — such as the machine manufacturer, a property owner, or a subcontractor — contributed to your injury, you may be able to bring a separate personal injury lawsuit against them, even while collecting workers' comp benefits. This is called a third-party claim, and it is often where the real compensation lives.
Yes. In New York, your immigration status does not affect your right to workers' compensation benefits or your right to bring a personal injury lawsuit. You are entitled to the same protections under the law as any other worker. Many employers and insurance companies hope immigrant workers do not know this. An attorney who speaks your language and understands your community can make all the difference.
Workers' compensation is a no-fault system — you do not need to prove your employer was negligent, but benefits are limited to medical expenses and partial lost wages. A personal injury lawsuit requires proving negligence but can recover far more: full lost wages, pain and suffering, future medical care, and more. In factory injury cases, both claims can often be pursued simultaneously.
For workers' compensation, you must notify your employer within 30 days and file a claim within 2 years. For a personal injury lawsuit against a third party, the statute of limitations is generally 3 years from the date of injury. If a government entity is involved, you may have as little as 90 days to file a Notice of Claim. Do not wait — call an attorney immediately.
Get emergency medical care first. Then report the injury to your employer in writing. Photograph the machine, the area, and any visible warnings or missing safety guards. Do not let the employer modify or remove the machine before it is inspected. Do not sign any documents from the insurance company without speaking to an attorney. Call Koenig Pierre at 1-800-946-4616 for a free consultation.
You Deserve Someone In Your Corner
If you or someone you love was hurt at work in Brooklyn — in a factory, on a job site, in a warehouse, anywhere — call Koenig Pierre. The consultation is free. You pay nothing unless he wins. He has done it before. He will do it for you.
Schedule Your Free Consultation 1-800-946-4616 · Se habla español · Nou pale KreyòlThe information on this page is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every case is different, and past results do not guarantee future outcomes. The $575,000 settlement described reflects the facts of a specific case and is not a promise of any particular result. Reading this article does not create an attorney-client relationship. If you have been injured, contact an attorney to discuss the specific facts of your situation. Koenig Pierre, Esq. is licensed to practice law in New York.
