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
An Assignment of a Note, Which Was Silent About Whether the Assignment of the Right to Bring a Tort Action Was Included, Did Not, Under New York Law, Include the Right to Bring a Tort Action
PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINING WHETHER RESPONDENT HAS BEEN PREJUDICED BY PETITIONER’S FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM CLARIFIED.
Revised Retainer Agreement, Which Changed the Fee Arrangement from Hourly to a 40% Contingency, Was Not Unconscionable/the Continuing Representation Doctrine Will Not Extend the Statute of Limitations for an Action Seeking the Return of Gifts Made by a Client to Her Attorneys Where the Sole Basis for the “Continuing Representation” Is a Fee Dispute
“EXEMPT EMPLOYEES” UNDER THE CIVIL SERVICE LAW ARE TERMINABLE AT WILL; A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT WHICH PURPORTS TO MAKE AN EXEMPT EMPLOYEE TERMINABLE FOR CAUSE IS UNENFORCEABLE (CT APP).
NO STATE COMMON LAW COPYRIGHT PROTECTION FOR PRE-1972 RECORDINGS PLAYED BY RADIO STATIONS.
THE WAIVER OF APPEAL WAS INVALID; THE PLEA COURT CONFLATED THE RIGHT TO APPEAL WITH THE RIGHTS FORFEITED BY A GUILTY PLEA; CASE REMITTED TO THE APPELLATE DIVISION FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE SUPPRESSION CLAIM (CT APP).
THE RECORD WAS INSUFFICIENT TO ALLOW THE CONCLUSION THAT DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, A POST-TRIAL EVIDENTIARY PROCEEDING MIGHT ANSWER THE QUESTIONS LEFT OPEN BY THE TRIAL RECORD; ANY ERROR IN ADMITTING DNA EVIDENCE WHERE CONSENT, NOT IDENTITY, IS THE ISSUE IS HARMLESS (CT APP).
CASE 1: THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SIGNATURES ON A NUPTIAL AGREEMENT MUST BE CONTEMPORANEOUS, BUT NOT NECESSARILY SIMULTANEOUS, WITH THE SIGNING; HERE A SEVEN-YEAR DELAY WAS TOO LONG; CASE 2: A DEFECT IN THE ACKNOWLEDGMENTS, HERE THE LAWYERS’ FAILURE TO STATE THE SIGNERS WERE PERSONALLY KNOWN TO THEM, DID NOT INVALIDATE THE AGREEEMENT (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”