You are here: / / Backhoe Bucket Not “Falling Object” Within Meaning of Labor Law 240 (1)...

Backhoe Bucket Not “Falling Object” Within Meaning of Labor Law 240 (1)

Plaintiff was severely injured when a backhoe bucket that had been suspended over him came down and crushed him.  With respect to the Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action, the issue was whether the backhoe bucket was a “falling object” within the meaning of the statute. In affirming Supreme Court’s determination that the backhoe bucket was not a falling object, the Third Department wrote:

 …[L]iability does not extend to “harm . . . caused by an inadequate, malfunctioning or defectively designed  scaffold, stay or hoist” unless the injury itself was  caused by  “the application of the force of gravity to an  object or person” … .  Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, the accident occurred as a result of … jostling the controls, causing the backhoe’s properly functioning hydraulic system to lower the bucket. Thus, the evidence  submitted  by  plaintiffs, if accepted  as true, would establish that “the backhoe  bucket  crushed  plaintiff[] . . . not because  of gravity, but  because  of its mechanical  operation by  an allegedly negligent co-worker” ….   Under these circumstances, Supreme Court properly dismissed plaintiffs’ section 240 (1) claim because there was no falling object – “the harm [did not] flow[] directly from the application of the force of gravity to [an] object” …, but from the usual and ordinary dangers of a construction site … .  Mohamed v City of Watervliet, 515473, 3rd Dept 5-9-13

 

You might also like
ALTHOUGH THE PEDESTRIAN-CAR ACCIDENT OCCURRED ON A ROAD OWNED BY DEFENDANT’S AND PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER AS DEFENDANT WAS LEAVING WORK, THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WHEN THE ACCIDENT OCCURRED, PLAINTIFF IS NOT RESTRICTED TO A WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW REMEDY (THIRD DEPT).
BECAUSE DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT CONSENT TO THE ISSUANCE OF A PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING THE PEOPLE’S DISCOVERY OBLIGATIONS, THE JUDGE WAS REQUIRED TO HOLD A HEARING; MATTER REMITTED; ON REMITTAL THE PEOPLE SHOULD PROVIDE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE REQUEST TO DEFENSE COUNSEL AND, TO FACILITATE ANY REQUEST FOR AN EXPEDITED REVIEW, DEFENSE COUNSEL SHOULD BE PROVIDED WITH A COPY OF THE PROTECTIVE ORDER (THIRD DEPT). ​
UInstructor at a Not-for-Profit Theater Company Was an Employee, Not an Independent Contractor
14-MONTH DELAY IN THE TRANSCRIPTION OF THE RECORD DID NOT DEPRIVE DEFENDANT OF HIS RIGHT TO APPEAL (THIRD DEPT).
HEARING SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD ON BIRTH PARENT’S PETITION TO ENFORCE A POSTADOPTION AGREEMENT ALLOWING THE BIRTH PARENT’S VISITATION WITH THE CHILD.
PETITIONER, A POLICE OFFICER, WAS ASKED BY HER SUPERVISOR TO PICK UP A LARGE BREAKFAST ORDER FOR THE PRECINCT; PETITIONER SLIPPED AND FELL ON ICE IN THE PARKING LOT WHEN RETURNING WITH THE ORDER; PETITIONER WAS “IN SERVICE” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE RETIREMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY LAW WHEN SHE FELL (THIRD DEPT).
DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED CONTINUOUS SEASONAL USE OF A TRAIL WHICH CROSSED OVER ONTO PLAINTIFF’S LAND (TO GO AROUND TWO OBSTACLES) FOR 20 YEARS, DEFENDANT HAD A PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT OVER THE TWO CROSS-OVER PORTIONS OF THE TRAIL (THIRD DEPT).
Defendant’s Failure to Appear at Pre-Trial Conference Did Not Warrant Striking Answer

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

Question of Fact Raised About Whether Injury Incurred by State Trooper; Paramedic... Absence of Privity Precluded Application of Collateral Estoppel Doctrine ...