You are here: / / Block Falling from Pallet Covered Under Labor Law 240(1)/Criteria for Common...

Block Falling from Pallet Covered Under Labor Law 240(1)/Criteria for Common Law Indemnification Explained

The Second Department determined injury from a stone block falling from a pallet was covered by Labor Law 240(1).  The court also explained the requirements for common law indemnification:

The defendants failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. Labor Law § 240(1) mandates that owners and contractors “in the erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning or pointing of a building or structure shall furnish or erect, or cause to be furnished or erected for the performance of such labor, scaffolding, hoists, stays, ladders, slings, hangers, blocks, pulleys, braces, irons, ropes, and other devices which shall be so constructed, placed and operated as to give proper protection to a person so employed.” The statute imposes absolute liability on owners and contractors whose failure to “provide proper protection to workers employed on a construction site” proximately causes injury to a worker … . The defendants failed to show that the injured plaintiff’s alleged injuries resulted from a general hazard encountered at a construction site and were not “the direct consequence of a failure to provide” an adequate device of the sort enumerated in Labor Law § 240(1) … . Those devices are intended to protect “against a risk arising from a physically significant elevation differential” (id. at 603). The defendants’ submissions did not establish that the accident was not the result of a failure to provide a protective device contemplated by the statute … . * * *

The key element of a cause of action for common-law indemnification is not a duty running from the indemnitor to the injured party, but rather, is a separate duty owed the indemnitee by the indemnitor … . ” Since the predicate of common-law indemnity is vicarious liability without actual fault on the part of the proposed indemnitee, it follows that a party who has itself actually participated to some degree in the wrongdoing cannot receive the benefit of the doctrine'”… . Desena v North Shore Hebrew Academy, 2014 NY Slip Op 05149, 2nd Dept 7-9-14

 

You might also like
STUDENT ASSUMED THE RISK OF BEING STRUCK BY A BASEBALL.
ALTHOUGH THERE WAS A STORM IN PROGRESS, DEFENDANT’S SNOW REMOVAL MAY HAVE EXACERBATED THE SLIPPERY CONDITION, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED.
INFANT PLAINTFF WAS STRUCK BY DEFENDANT DRIVER WHILE IN A CROSS-WALK WITH THE WALK SIGNAL ON; SUN-GLARE IS NOT AN “EMERGENCY” WHICH WILL RAISE A QUESTON OF FACT; PLAINTIFFS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY PERSONNEL WERE ENGAGED IN A GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION RESPONDING TO PLAINTIFFS’ 911 CALL AND THERE WAS NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE PLAINTIFFS; MUNICIPAL DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS NEGLIGENCE, WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
REQUESTS FOR RECORDS OF SURGICAL PROCEDURES PERFORMED ON NON-PARTIES AND RECORDS OF COMPLAINTS AGAINST DEFENDANT SURGEON SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED.
DEFENDANT MADE A DISCOVERY DEMAND FOR “LINE OF DUTY” DOCUMENTS RELEVANT TO THE DEFENSE; THE PEOPLE DID NOT ADDRESS THE DEMAND; ON APPEAL THE PEOPLE ARGUED FOR THE FIRST TIME THAT THERE WERE NO SUCH DOCUMENTS; BY FAILING TO ADDRESS THE DEMAND IN THE MOTION COURT, THE PEOPLE WERE DEEMED TO HAVE CONCEDED THE EXISTENCE OF THE DOCUMENTS; THE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WAS THEREFORE ILLUSORY; INDICTMENT DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
THE DEFENDANT TOWN DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NEW YORK VOTING RIGHTS ACT (NYVRA) AND WAS THEREFORE INELIGIBLE FOR THE 90-DAY “SAFE HARBOR” EXTENSION TO ADDRESS THE VIOLATION OF THE NYVRA ALLEGED BY PLAINTIFF-CITIZENS (SECOND DEPT).
ATTORNEY LETTERS DID NOT CONSTITUTE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WHICH WOULD SUPPORT A MOTION TO DISMISS (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

Material Misrepresentation Justified Rescission of Policy Portion of Assisted Outpatient Treatment (AOT) Order Not Supported by Testimony...