You are here: / / Plaintiff’s Failure to Replace Manhole Cover Was Sole Proximate Cause o...

Plaintiff’s Failure to Replace Manhole Cover Was Sole Proximate Cause of Injury

Over a dissent, the Second Department determined plaintiff’s failure to replace a manhole cover was the sole proximate cause of his injury:

As to Labor Law § 240(1), which imposes a non-delegable duty upon owners and general contractors to provide safety devices to protect workers from elevation-related risks, liability would attach where a violation of that duty proximately caused injuries … . Conversely, where a plaintiff’s own actions are the sole proximate cause of the accident or injury, no liability attaches under the statute … . Where a plaintiff has an adequate safety device readily available that would have prevented the accident, and for no good reason chooses not to use it, Labor Law § 240(1) does not apply … .

Here, plaintiff was provided with the perfect safety device, namely, the manhole cover, which was nearby and readily available. He disregarded his supervisor’s explicit instruction given that day to replace the cover before dismantling the enclosure. Plaintiff has not afforded any good reason why he started taking apart the enclosure before ascertaining whether the cover was in place. Having just emerged from it, plaintiff should have known that the manhole was still open, and covering it at that time would have avoided the accident. Barreto v Metropolitan Transp Auth, 2013 NY Slip Op 07118, 1st Dept 10-31-13

 

You might also like
Mistaken Classification of Property Resulting In a Much Too Large Tax Bill Was a “Clerical Error” Which Could Be Corrected by the City Department of Finance—No Need for Property Owner to Commence a Tax Certiorari Proceeding
FAILURE TO ANSWER SOME QUESTIONS AT THE 50-H HEARING REQUIRED DISMISSAL OF THIS FALSE ARREST AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
WHERE A MOTION TO RENEW IS NOT BASED UPON A CHANGE IN THE LAW, THERE IS NO TIME LIMIT FOR BRINGING THE MOTION (SECOND DEPT),
IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION, THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE DID NOT INCLUDE THE REQUIRED INFORMATION AND THE PROOF OF MAILING OF THE NOTICE WAS DEFICIENT; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
Question of Fact About Sequence of Rear-End Collisions Precluded Summary Judgment
PLAINTIFF STATED A CLAIM FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE BASED UPON THE ATTORNEYS’ ALLEGEDLY UNREASONABLE DELAYS IN PROSECUTING AN ACTION AGAINST A CONTRACTOR, RESULTING IN THE INABILITY TO COLLECT THE JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT HAD PLED GUILTY TO SCALDING A DISABLED CHILD BY BATHING HER IN WATER THAT WAS TOO HOT, AT THE SUBSEQUENT CIVIL TRIAL DEFENDANT WAS ALLOWED TO CROSS-EXAMINE PLAINTIFF’S EXPERTS ABOUT THE EVIDENCE THAT THE CHILD SUFFERED AN ALLERGIC REACTION AND HAD NOT BEEN SCALDED, THE DEFENSE VERDICT WAS AFFIRMED, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION IN LIMINE REQUESTING THAT THE GUILTY PLEA BE GIVEN COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL EFFECT AND THAT THE PLAINTIFF BE PRECLUDED FROM PRESENTING EVIDENCE OF THE ALLERGIC REACTION WAS ACTUALLY AN UNTIMELY SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, DESPITE SUPREME COURT’S GRANTING OF THE MOTION, THE DEFENSE VERDICT MAKES ANY FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF THE ERROR UNNECESSARY (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SCHOOL BUS DRIVER AND MONITOR TOOK APPROPRIATE STEPS AFTER THE FIGHT IN WHICH PLAINTIFF STUDENT WAS INJURED BROKE OUT ON THE BUS (SECOND 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

Upward Departure in SORA Proceeding Affirmed Evidence of Availability of Ladders Insufficient to Defeat Summary Judgment...