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
PLAINTIFFS WERE ENTITLED TO LIQUIDATED DAMAGES OF $1000 PER DAY FOR THE TIME PLAINTIFFS WERE UNABLE TO LIVE IN THEIR TOWNHOUSE BECAUSE OF THE DEFENDANTS’ RENOVATIONS NEXT DOOR (FIRST DEPT).
JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, VACATED A DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN THE ABSENCE OF A MOTION OR REQUEST, NO APPEAL AS OF RIGHT FROM A SUA SPONTE ORDER (FIRST DEPT).
Open and Obvious Nature of Condition Required Dismissal of Complaint
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER GROSS NEGLIGENCE MIGHT OVERCOME A CONTRACTUAL LIMITATION ON LIABILITY (FIRST DEPT).
ALLOWING IN EVIDENCE DEFENDANT’S TEXT THAT HE MAY NEED MONEY FOR AN ATTORNEY WAS (HARMLESS) ERROR BECAUSE IT WAS AN INFRINGEMENT ON THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL (FIRST DEPT).
SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE THE DISCRETION TO GRANT PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO AMEND A COMPLAINT AFTER THE COMPLAINT HAD BEEN DISMISSED FOR LACK OF STANDING BY THE APPELLATE DIVISION (FIRST DEPT).
HERE THE PLAINTIFFS-TENANTS WERE ENTITLED TO A YELLOWSTONE INJUNCTION WHICH TOLLS THE CURE PERIOD UNTIL A COURT DETERMINES WHETHER THE TENANT HAS ACTUALLY DEFAULTED; PURPOSES OF AND CRITERIA FOR A YELLOWSTONE INJUNCTION CLEARLY EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT). ​
KESHA, A RECORDING ARTIST, MADE PUBLIC STATEMENTS THAT HER MUSIC PRODUCER, GOTTWALD, HAD DRUGGED AND SEXUALLY ABUSED HER; GOTTWALD WAS PROPERLY AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN HIS DEFAMATION ACTION; GOTTWALD DID NOT HAVE TO PROVE MALICE BECAUSE HE WAS NOT A GENERAL-PURPOSE OR LIMITED-PURPOSE PUBLIC FIGURE; TWO DISSENTERS DISAGREED (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...