You are here: / / Failure to Wear Hard Hat Does Not Preclude 240(1) Claim

Failure to Wear Hard Hat Does Not Preclude 240(1) Claim

he First Department determined a worker was entitled to partial summary judgment on a 240(1) claim based on a falling pipe striking him in the head.  The fact that the worker was not wearing a hard hat did not raise a triable issue of fact on the 240(1) claim:

The evidence demonstrates that plaintiff, a welder who was working at a power plant that was being constructed, was struck on the head by a pipe that fell from a height of approximately 85 to 120 feet as a result of a gap in a toeboard installed along a grated walkway near the top of a generator in the power plant … . It is undisputed that there was no netting to prevent objects from falling on workers and contrary to defendants’ contention, plaintiff is not required to show exactly how the pipe fell, since, under any of the proffered theories, the lack of protective devices was the proximate cause of his injuries …. Nor is plaintiff required to show that the pipe was being hoisted or secured when it fell, since that is not a precondition to liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240(1) … .

In opposition, defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact since they failed to show that adequate protective devices required by Labor Law § 240(1) were employed at the site. That plaintiff was wearing a welding hood but not a hard hat does not raise an issue of fact since “[a] hard hat is not the type of safety device enumerated in Labor Law § 240(1) to be constructed, placed and operated, so as to give proper protection from extraordinary elevation-related risks to a construction worker” … . Mercado v Caithness Long Is LLC, 2013 NY Slip Op 02005, 9634, 102473/09, 590277/11, 1st Dept 3-26-13

 

You might also like
IF THE TRIAL EVIDENCE VARIES FROM THE THEORY OF THE INDICTMENT, THE RELATED CONVICTIONS WILL BE VACATED (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER GROSS NEGLIGENCE MIGHT OVERCOME A CONTRACTUAL LIMITATION ON LIABILITY (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERTS RAISED ISSUES OF FACT REQUIRING DENIAL OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION.
THE CONTENTS OF A SAFE DEPOSIT BOX CONSTITUTED THE PROPERTY OF JOINT TENANTS WITH RIGHTS OF SURVIVORSHIP, THEREFORE THE CONTENTS ARE AVAILABLE TO SATISFY A JUDGMENT AGAINST ONLY ONE OF THE JOINT TENANTS (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S SUBCONTRACTOR USED A PAINT STRIPPING PRODUCT DURING AN OFFICE BUILDING RENOVATION, PLAINTIFF, AN EVENING OFFICE CLEANER, ALLEGED INJURY FROM BREATHING TOXIC FUMES, THERE IS EVIDENCE DEFENDANT HAD A DUTY TO WARN, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE PRESUMPTION A CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT (CD) HAS BEEN PAID OUT WITHIN 20 YEARS OF WHEN IT CAME DUE APPLIED TO CD’S IN PLAINTIFF’S DECEASED HUSBAND’S IRA WHICH WERE RENEWED AUTOMATICALLY (FIRST DEPT).
PLACING DEFENDANT IN HANDCUFFS ELEVATED THE INVESTIGATORY STOP TO AN ILLEGAL ARREST, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS OF RAPE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT BY DEFENDANT ARE SUFFICIENT TO ALLEGE A CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER NEW YORK CITY’S VICTIMS OF GENDER-MOTIVATED VIOLENCE PROTECTION LAW; THERE IS NO NEED TO ALLEGE SIMILAR ASSAULTS AGAINST OTHER WOMEN TO DEMONSTRATE ANIMUS ON THE BASIS OF GENDER (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Oral Partnership Agreement Dissolvable at Will Because of Lack of Specifici... Assault by Another Student—Question Whether School District Had Notice...