You are here: / / In a Falling Object Case, the Device Which Failed Was Not a Safety Device—Defendant...

In a Falling Object Case, the Device Which Failed Was Not a Safety Device—Defendant Not Liable

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, over a dissent, the Court of Appeals determined the action based upon injury from a falling conduit should have been dismissed because the device which failed was not a safety device:

Labor Law § 240 (1) … requires owners and contractors to provide proper protection to those working on a construction site … . It imposes absolute liability where the failure to provide such protection is a proximate cause of a worker's injury … .In order to prevail on summary judgment in a section 240 (1) “falling object” case, the injured worker must demonstrate the existence of a hazard contemplated under that statute “and the failure to use, or the inadequacy of, a safety device of the kind enumerated therein” … . Essentially, the plaintiff must demonstrate that at the time the object fell, it either was being “hoisted or secured” …, or “required securing for the purposes of the undertaking” … . Contrary to the dissent's contention, section 240 (1) does not automatically apply simply because an object fell and injured a worker; “a plaintiff must show that the object fell . . . because of the absence or inadequacy of a safety device … of the kind enumerated in the statute” … .

The Appellate Division … in denying summary judgment to defendants … , because they established as a matter of law that the conduit did not fall on plaintiff due to the absence or inadequacy of an enumerated safety device.

The compression coupling, which plaintiff claims was inadequate, is not a safety device “constructed, placed, and operated as to give proper protection” from the falling conduit. Its only function was to keep the conduit together as part of the conduit/pencil box assembly. The coupling had been installed a week before the incident and had been serving its intended purpose until a change order was issued and plaintiff dismantled the conduit/pencil box assembly. Fabrizi v 1095 Avenue of the Americas…, 15, CtApp 2-20-14

 

You might also like
CONVICTION AFFIRMED, THREE-JUDGE DISSENT ARGUED THE APPELLATE DIVISION EXCEEDED ITS AUTHORITY BY AFFIRMING ON A SEARCH-RELATED GROUND THAT WAS NOT RULED ON BY SUPREME COURT (CT APP).
Proof of the Dog’s Emaciated Condition Supported Defendant’s Conviction of the Violation of Agriculture and Markets Law 353
UNDER THE CONSTITUTIONAL ERROR STANDARD, HEARSAY STATEMENTS ADMITTED IN THIS ATTEMPTED MURDER AND FIRST DEGREE ASSAULT TRIAL CONSTITUTED HARMLESS ERROR, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (CT APP).
GRANDMOTHER WHO WITNESSED DEBRIS FROM THE FACADE OF A BUILDING INJURE HER TWO-YEAR-OLD GRANDDAUGHTER IS “IMMEDIATE FAMILY” WITHIN THE MEANING OF “ZONE OF DANGER” JURISPRUDENCE; GRANDMOTHER CAN THEREFORE MAINTAIN AN ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (CT APP).
THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING PRESERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT TOOK THE “HARD LOOK” REQUIRED BY THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT BEFORE APPROVING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SENIOR HOUSING ON GREEN SPACE (CT APP). ​
Police Vehicles Are Excluded from the Meaning of “Motor Vehicle” in the Insurance Law—Passenger-Police-Officer Injured In a Police Vehicle by an Uninsured/Underinsured Driver Is Not Covered Under the Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist Provision of the Police-Officer-Driver’s Personal Policy
DIRECT APPEAL CANNOT BE DISMISSED BASED UPON THE APPELLANT’S INVOLUNTARY DEPORTATION.
DECEDENT’S WORK-RELATED COVID DEATH ENTITLED DECEDENT’S DAUGHTER, DECEDENT’S “STATUTORY BENEFICIARY,” TO “ACCIDENTAL DEATH BENEFITS” UNDER A RECENT STATUTE; PETITIONER, DECEDENT’S PARTNER, WHO WAS DECEDENT’S “DESIGNATED BENEFICIARY” FOR “ORDINARY DEATH BENEFITS,” WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE “ACCIDENTAL DEATH BENEFITS” (CT APP).

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

A Prima Facie Case Under the Dram Shop Act Had Been Made Against Both Bars Which... “Rubbing” Constitutes “Forcible Touching”