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
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANTS WERE ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION FROM SNOW-ICE SIDEWALK-FALL LIABILITY UNDER THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, THEY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE HAZARD WAS NOT CREATED BY THEIR SNOW REMOVAL EFFORTS, SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED.
DEFENDANT LANDLORD DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS AN OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF NOTICE OF THE ALLEGEDLY DANGEROUS CONDITION IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF, AN EXTERMINATOR, WAS IN THE ATTIC OF DEFENDANT’S HOUSE; THE ATTIC HAD NO FLOOR AND THE PLAINTIFF WALKED ON THE BEAMS OR JOISTS; THE PLAINTIFF TESTIFIED HE STEPPED ON A SMALLER PIECE OF WOOD LYING ACROSS THE BEAMS, IT GAVE WAY AND HIS LEG WENT THROUGH THE CEILING; THE 2ND DEPARTMENT, OVER A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT, DETERMINED THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE SMALLER BOARD WAS A LATENT DEFECT OR THAT DEFENDANT HAD NOTICE OF ANY DEFECT, SET ASIDE THE PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT AND DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT (SECOND DEPT).
Board of County Legislators is Necessary Party Re: Legality of Local Law
CONFLICTING EXPERT OPINIONS IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION REQUIRED DENIAL OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; THE FACT THAT THE ISSUE WHETHER ASPIRIN SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADMINISTERED AS TREATMENT FOR STROKE WAS RAISED IN A DEPOSITION (BUT NOT IN THE COMPLAINT OR BILL OF PARTICULARS) ALLOWED PLAINTIFF TO RAISE THE ISSUE IN OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT POLICE OFFICER ACTED WITH “RECKLESS DISREGARD” FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS DURING A POLICE CHASE PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT; PLAINTIFF POLICE OFFICER WAS INJURED WHEN HER PATROL CAR WAS STRUCK BY THE PURSUED CAR (SECOND DEPT).
ATTORNEYS WHO HAD ACCEPTED A RETAINER TO CONTEST THE REMOVAL OF A GUARDIAN WERE NOT REQUIRED TO RETURN THE RETAINER BECAUSE IT WAS PAID FROM THE INCAPACITATED PERSON’S FUNDS, NO PROOF THE ATTORNEYS WERE AWARE OF THE SOURCE OF THE FUNDS, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING WITH ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE AND THE LOST NOTE AFFIDAVIT WAS INSUFFICIENT (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...