You are here: / / Failure to Wear a Safety Harness Could Not Constitute the Sole Proximate...

Failure to Wear a Safety Harness Could Not Constitute the Sole Proximate Cause of Plaintiff’s Fall (Caused by the Failure of a Scaffolding Plank)—Therefore Plaintiff Entitled to Partial Summary Judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) Claim

The Third Department noted that plaintiff’s failure to wear a safety harness did not preclude recovery for a fall caused by the failure of a scaffolding plank. Under the facts, plaintiff’s failure to wear a harness could not constitute the sole proximate cause of the accident:

…[D]efendant alleged that claimant was recalcitrant in, among other things, failing to use an available safety harness. With respect to such defense, liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1) does not attach when safety devices are readily available at the work site and a claimant knows that he or she is expected to use them but, for no good reason, chooses not to and such omission is the sole proximate cause of the accident … . However, where a device intended to support a worker at an elevated height fails and that failure is a proximate cause of the accident, it is “conceptually impossible for a statutory violation (which serves as a proximate cause for a [claimant’s] injury) to occupy the same ground as a [claimant’s] sole proximate cause for the injury” … .

Here, the facts are undisputed that, in an effort to assist with the construction of a platform, claimant stepped onto a plank on the existing scaffold, which was the primary safety device erected for the work, and the plank collapsed, causing claimant to fall and sustain his injuries. Accordingly, claimant’s decision not to wear an available safety harness, or employ other safety measures that might have been available, could not have been the sole proximate cause of the accident, and the Court of Claims correctly awarded claimants partial summary judgment on the issue of liability with respect to their Labor Law § 240 (1) claim … . Fabiano v State of New York, 2014 NY Slip Op 08695, 3rd Dept 12-11-14

 

You might also like
THE DIVISION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES’ (DCJS’S) DETERMINATION THAT PETITIONER POLICE OFFICER WAS TERMINATED “FOR CAUSE” WAS CONTRADICTED BY THE FACTS; THE DETERMINATION WAS REVERSED AS “ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS” (THIRD DEPT).
PETITIONER STARTED PROCEEDINGS CONCERNING THE EXECUTOR’S HANDLING OF DECEDENT’S ASSETS IN SURROGATE’S COURT; AFTER RELIEF WAS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE PETITIONER STARTED SIMILAR PROCEEDINGS IN SUPREME COURT, A COURT OF CONCURRENT JURISDICTION; THE EXECUTOR’S MOTION TO TRANSFER THAT PROCEEDING TO SURROGATE’S COURT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).
HEAVY BARN DOORS WHICH HAD BEEN TAKEN OFF THE HINGES FELL ON PLAINTIFF AS HE DELIVERED SHEETROCK TO THE BARN WHICH WAS BEING CONVERTED TO A MUSIC STUDIO; THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE DOORS PRESENTED A DANGEROUS CONDITION AND CONSTITUTED AN ELEVATION-RELATED HAZARD AND WHETHER THIS WAS A COMMERCIAL PROJECT TO WHICH THE HOMEOWNER EXEMPTION DID NOT APPLY (LABOR LAW 200 AND 240(1)) (THIRD DEPT).
AFTER THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION (DEC) AND THE PERMIT APPLICANT CAME TO AN AGREEMENT, A REQUEST BY AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS FOR FURTHER ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES RELATING TO THE APPROVAL OF TWO DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN THE CATSKILLS WAS PROPERLY DENIED BY THE DEC COMMISSIONER (THIRD DEPT).
CLAIMANT FINANCIAL ADVISOR HIRED TO SELL INSURANCE PRODUCTS WAS AN EMPLOYEE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).
COVID STIMULUS PAYMENTS WERE ADVANCE TAX REFUNDS MEASURED BY THE NUMBER OF CHILDREN, NOT PAYMENTS FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CHILDREN; THEREFORE THE PAYMENTS WERE SUBJECT TO EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION IN THIS DIVORCE PROCEEDING AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED TO MOTHER AS CHILD SUPPORT (THIRD DEPT).
DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED WATER WAS NOT DIVERTED ONTO PLAINTIFF’S PROPERTY IN BAD FAITH.
THE THIRD DEPARTMENT CONFIRMED THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD’S (PERB’S) RULING THAT THE VILLAGE IMPROPERLY COERCED A VILLAGE EMPLOYEE TO RESIGN FROM THE UNION AND ACCEPT A LOWER SALARY (THIRD 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

Indian Point Nuclear Power Plants Exempt from a Consistency Review Under New... Plaintiff’s Expert’s Failure to Address Indications in Plaintiff’s...