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
Criteria for Unconstitutional Impairment of Contract Rights Explained in Context of Requirement that Health Insurers Reimburse Customers Pursuant to Public Health Law Section 4308
Division of Parole’s Mistake Which Resulted in the Incarceration of the Claimant Was Privileged—Claimant’s Action for False Imprisonment Properly Dismissed
30-YEAR-OLD ALLEGATIONS OF FATHER’S SEXUAL ABUSE OF HIS 10-YEAR-OLD NIECE DID NOT JUSTIFY THE LIMITED PARENTING TIME AWARDED FATHER; FATHER HAD DEMONSTRATED HIS ABILITY TO PROVIDE FOR THE CHILDREN’S WELL-BEING AND THE CASEWORKERS HAD NO CONCERNS ABOUT FATHER (THIRD DEPT). ​
MOTHER PRESENTED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HER PRO SE PETITION FOR A MODIFICATION OF CUSTODY TO WARRANT A HEARING (THIRD DEPT).
ALTHOUGH INJURY IN A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT ON THE WAY TO WORK IS USUALLY NOT COVERED BY WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, HERE THE “SPECIAL ERRAND” EXCEPTION APPLIED BECAUSE CLAIMANT, A POLICE OFFICER, WAS ENGAGED IN AN INVESTIGATION AND ON HIS WAY TO PICK UP A POLICE VEHICLE WHEN THE ACCIDENT OCCURRED (THIRD DEPT).
ACTION TO DISSOLVE A CLOSELY HELD CORPORATION BASED UPON BREACH OF A FIDUCIARY DUTY WAS TIMELY AND JUDICIAL DISSOLUTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).
EVIDENCE PROPERLY ADMITTED AT TRIAL PURSUANT TO THE CRIME-FRAUD EXCEPTION TO THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE, THE SEARCH WARRANT WAS EXECUTED AT AND THE EVIDENCE WAS SEIZED FROM THE SARATOGA COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER’S OFFICE (THIRD DEPT).
Preservation by Objection Not Required When Defendant First Learns of Post-Release Supervision Moments Before Sentencing

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 © 2025 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 ...