You are here: / / Losing Balance On Ladder Did Not Support Labor Law 240(1) Cause of Act...

Losing Balance On Ladder Did Not Support Labor Law 240(1) Cause of Action

Plaintiff was standing on the second highest rung of a ladder when he lost his balance and fell.  In reversing Supreme Court’s grant of summary judgment to the plaintiff on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action, the Second Department explained:

” Labor Law § 240(1) imposes upon owners and general contractors, and their agents, a nondelegable duty to provide safety devices necessary to protect workers from risks inherent in elevated work sites'” … . ” To prevail on a cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1), a plaintiff must establish that the statute was violated and that the violation was a proximate cause of his or her injuries'” .. . “The mere fact that a plaintiff fell from a ladder does not, in and of itself, establish that proper protection was not provided” … . There must be evidence that the ladder was defective or inadequately secured and that the defect, or the failure to secure the ladder, was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s injuries … . Where a plaintiff falls off the ladder because he or she lost his or her balance, and there is no evidence that the ladder from which the plaintiff fell was defective or inadequate, liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240(1) does not attach … . To impose liability under such circumstances would make a defendant an insurer of the workplace, a result which the Legislature never intended in enacting Labor Law § 240(1) … .  Hugo v Sarantakos, 2013 NY Slip Op 05512, 2nd Dept 7-31-13

 

You might also like
THIS FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDING WAS REMITTED TO FAMILY COURT; APPELLATE REVIEW WAS NOT POSSIBLE IN THE ABSENCE OF FINDINGS OF FACT ADDRESSING CONFLICTING EVIDENCE AND THE CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT FAILED TO AFFIRMATIVELY ADDRESS EVERY THEORY OF LIABILITY RAISED BY THE COMPLAINT, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE.
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE SERVICE-OF-PROCESS REQUIREMENTS IN CPLR 308 AND 311 ARE JURISDICTIONAL DEFECTS, NOT “TECHNICAL” DEFECTS WHICH CAN BE OVERLOOKED PURSUANT TO CPLR 2001 (SECOND DEPT).
TENANT WAS INJURED TRYING TO MOVE A HEAVY RADIATOR THAT HAD BEEN LEFT OUTSIDE HIS APARTMENT FOR MONTHS, DEFENDANT LANDLORD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT CLAIMING PLAINTIFF’S CONDUCT WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT WAS PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT)
THE CERTIFICATION ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE A NOTE OF ISSUE WITHIN 90 DAYS WAS NOT A VALID 90-DAY NOTICE PURSUANT TO CPLR 3216; THE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AND THE CROSS-MOTION TO EXTEND THE TIME FOR FILING A NOTE OF ISSUE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
ELDERLY PLAINTIFF’S HEALTH PROBLEMS EXCUSED HER FAILURE TO APPEAR FOR A 50-h HEARING, COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
SEVERE ABUSE FINDING COULD ONLY BE MADE AGAINST A LEGAL PARENT, PRESUMPTION MOTHER’S HUSBAND IS THE FATHER OF THE CHILDREN WAS REBUTTED (SECOND DEPT).
Court Properly Declined to Exercise Jurisdiction Over Child Custody/Access Matters Because the Children No Longer Had a Sufficient Connection with New York State

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

Cause of Action Alleging Retaliation for Sexual Harassment Complaint in Violation... Homeowner’s Exception Did Not Apply