You are here: / / Plaintiff Was Catapulted Into the Air from a Flatbed Truck When a Heavy...

Plaintiff Was Catapulted Into the Air from a Flatbed Truck When a Heavy Bundle Landed on the Plank He Was Standing On—Labor Law 240(1) Action Should Not Have Been Dismissed

The Second Department determined that the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action should not have been dismissed.  Plaintiff was catapulted into the air when heavy bundles of rebar were being rolled off a flatbed truck.  A bundle landed on the plank plaintiff was standing on and the plank raised up sharply.  A hoist had previously been used to remove the bundles from the truck.  The court also noted that the common law negligence and Labor Law 200 causes of action against one of the defendants should not have been dismissed because of a question of fact about the defendant’s supervisory role:

“Labor Law § 240(1) was designed to prevent those types of accidents in which the scaffold, hoist, stay, ladder or other protective device proved inadequate to shield the injured worker from harm directly flowing from the application of the force of gravity to an object or person” … . “The relevant inquiry—–one which may be answered in the affirmative even in situations where the object does not fall on the worker–—is rather whether the harm flows directly from the application of the force of gravity to the object” … .

The launch of the plaintiff from the truck along with the wooden “four by four” plank upon which he was standing flowed directly from the application of the force of gravity to the bundle of rebar … . The elevation differential between the flatbed truck and the ground was significant given the 8,000-to-10,000-pound weight of the bundles of rebar, and the amount of force they were capable of generating, “even over the course of a relatively short descent” … .

The causal connection between the bundles’ “inadequately regulated descent and plaintiff’s injury” was unmediated by any safety device, such as the crane that had hoisted the bundles earlier in the day … .

The plaintiff’s evidence established, prima facie, that the … respondents violated Labor Law § 240 by failing to provide an enumerated safety device, such as the hoist that had been provided earlier in the day to secure the bundle of rebar as it was being lowered, and that the Tillary respondents’ failure to provide an appropriate safety device was a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury … . Treile v Brooklyn Tillary LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 06197, 2nd Dept 9-17-14

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER FAILED TO ELIMINATE ALL TRIABLE ISSUES OF FACT RE WHETHER A GAP BETWEEN THE CURB AND THE SIDEWALK WAS ATTRIBUTABLE TO ITS NEGLIGENCE AND CONTRIBUTED TO PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL (SECOND DEPT).
THE PRE-ANSWER MOTION TO DISMISS CERTAIN CAUSES OF ACTION BASED UPON DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE CAUSES OF ACTION WERE PRECLUDED BY CONTRACT PROVISIONS (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE HOMEOWNER HIRED CONTRACTORS TO REPAIR HER HOME AND VISITED THE PROPERTY AS THE WORK WAS BEING DONE SHE DID NOT DIRECT OR SUPERVISE THE WORK AND THEREFORE WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THE LABOR LAW 240(1), 241(6) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT UNDER AN ACCOUNT STATED THEORY IN AN ACTION TO COLLECT A CREDIT CARD DEBT.
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS DOING REPAIR WORK OR ROUTINE MAINTENANCE PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION IN THIS FAMILY OFFENSE CASE BECAUSE THE APPELLANT DID NOT HAVE AN “INTIMATE RELATIONSHIP” WITH THE SUBJECT CHILDREN WITHIN THE MEANING OF FAMILY COURT ACT 812 (SECOND DEPT).
PROPERTY OWNER’S LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) FOR PLAINTIFF’S FALL FROM A SCAFFOLD THAT DID NOT HAVE SAFETY RAILINGS IS BASED UPON ITS STATUS AS AN OWNER, NOT NEGLIGENCE, THEREFORE PROPERTY OWNER ENTITLED TO INDEMNIFICATION FROM GENERAL CONTRACTOR (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT AND COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Failure to Subpoena Witness Required Reversal Motion to Renew Was Not Based Upon a Change in the Applicable Law—Motion...