You are here: / / Question of Fact Whether Failure to Wear a Harness Precluded Recovery in...

Question of Fact Whether Failure to Wear a Harness Precluded Recovery in a Labor Law 240 (1) Action

The Second Department determined defendant had raised a question of fact whether plaintiff’s actions were the sole proximate cause of the accident (which would preclude recovery in a Labor Law 240 (1) action).  Plaintiff was injured when plywood flooring collapsed. However the defendant presented evidence plaintiff was aware he was required to wear a harness which would have prevented him from falling to the floor below:

” Labor Law § 240(1) imposes upon owners and general contractors, and their agents, a nondelegable duty to provide safety devices necessary to protect workers from risks inherent in elevated work sites'” … . To prevail on a cause of action pursuant to Labor Law § 240(1), the plaintiff must establish a violation of the statute and that the violation was a proximate cause of his injuries … . Although contributory negligence on the part of the worker is not a defense to a Labor Law § 240(1) claim …, where a plaintiff’s actions are the sole proximate cause of his injuries, liability under Labor Law § 240(1) does not attach … .

Here, although the plaintiff met his prima facie burden of establishing a violation of Labor Law § 240(1) … the defendants produced evidence that a safety harness and line were available to the plaintiff, that he was aware that he was required to anchor the line on the floor where he was working, and that the anchors, harness, and line would have prevented him from falling to the 14th floor, but that the plaintiff had consciously decided not to anchor his line on the 15th floor as instructed. The defendant’s submissions were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff’s actions were the sole proximate cause of his accident … . Bascombe v West 44th St Hotel LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 00712, 2nd Dept 1-28-15

 

You might also like
ORAL AGREEMENTS BETWEEN PERSONS COHABITING TOGETHER ARE NOT PER SE REQUIRED TO BE IN WRITING, SEVERAL CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE THE UNDERLYING AGREEMENTS WERE NOT SUBJECT TO THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS (SECOND DEPT).
CPLR 3216 IS A FORGIVING STATUTE WHICH ALLOWS BUT DOES NOT REQUIRE DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A 90-DAY NOTICE; HERE PLAINTIFFS PRESENTED AN ADEQUATE EXCUSE AND DEMONSTRATED THE ACTION HAS MERIT; THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
AFTER FATHER’S DEATH, SON COULD NOT SEEK AN INJUNCTION AGAINST MOTHER AND SUE MOTHER FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT BASED UPON MOTHER AND FATHER’S AGREEMENT NOT TO MODIFY OR REVOKE THEIR WILLS WITHOUT THE MUTUAL CONSENT OF THE PARTIES.
THE UNION’S CHALLENGE TO THE DEDUCTION OF THE COST OF HEALTH INSURANCE FROM A VILLAGE POLICE OFFICER’S PAYCHECK WAS A BREACH-OF-CONTRACT ACTION FOR WHICH THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS BEGAN RUNNING ANEW FOR EACH PAYCHECK (SECOND DEPT). ​
Agent for Partially Disclosed Principal Is Personally Liable on the Contract
Late Notice of Claim Properly Allowed in Absence of Reasonable Excuse
The Existence of Probable Cause Required Dismissal of Causes of Action for False Arrest, False Imprisonment, Malicious Prosecution and Violation of Civil Rights (42 USC 1983)
Automobile Policy Does Not Cover Injury to Passerby Bitten by a Dog Which Was Inside a Vehicle

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

Purchaser of Real Property, Who Is Aware of a Pending Lawsuit Involving the... Criteria for Area Zoning Variance and Court Review of Local Variance Proceedings...