You are here: / / Principles of Owner/Contractor’s Liability Pursuant to Labor Law...

Principles of Owner/Contractor’s Liability Pursuant to Labor Law 241 (6) Succinctly Explained—Plaintiff’s Freedom from Comparative Fault Must Be Demonstrated—Absence of Actual or Constructive Notice on the Owner/Contractor’s Part Is Not a Defense

The Second Department determined summary judgment was properly granted to plaintiff on his Labor Law 241 (6) cause of action based upon the presence of snow and ice on the work site.  Plaintiff was directed to carry a piece of plywood over an area covered with ice and snow.  He fell and was injured.  The court explained the relevant analytical criteria:

As a predicate for liability pursuant to Labor Law § 241(6), the plaintiff alleged that he was injured as a result of a snow and ice condition that was permitted to remain on the worksite in violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(d). That section of the Industrial Code unequivocally directs that ice and snow “shall be removed” from worksites so as “to provide safe footing” (12 NYCRR 23-1.7[d]…). The duty imposed is nondelegable … . Indeed, here, the Construction Management Agreement … provided that [the contractor] “shall remove snow or ice from the Project Site.” The plaintiff’s testimony at his deposition and his averments in his affidavit in support of his motion established that he slipped and fell as a result of the snow and ice at the location where he was performing the tasks assigned to him. The plaintiff also demonstrated his freedom from comparative fault, as he was following his employer’s directives, using the equipment provided, and wearing proper shoes as required by his employer. The plaintiff thereby demonstrated his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the Labor Law § 241(6) cause of action … . … Moreover, “[s]ince an owner or general contractor’s vicarious liability under section 241 (6) is not dependent on its personal capability to prevent or cure a dangerous condition, the absence of actual or constructive notice sufficient to prevent or cure must also be irrelevant to the imposition of Labor Law § 241 (6) liability” … . Reynoso v Bovis Lend Lease LMB Inc, 2015 NY Slip Op 01256, 2nd Dept 2-11-15

 

You might also like
HERE PLAINTIFF BROUGHT SUIT AGAINST A SCHOOL DISTRICT PURSUANT TO THE CHILD VICTIMS ACT ALLEGING THE SCHOOL DISTRICT NEGLIGENTLY FAILED TO PROTECT HER FROM SEXUAL ASSAULT BY A FELLOW STUDENT; THE FACT THAT THE STUDENT COULD NOT BE CRIMINALLY PROSECUTED FOR THE ASSAULT BECAUSE OF HIS AGE DID NOT PRECLUDE REVIVAL OF THE CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE SCHOOL DISTRICT; IN OTHER WORDS THE CHILD VICTIMS ACT APPLIES TO REVIVE NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION EVEN IF THE UNDERLYING SEXUAL ASSAULT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN PROSECUTED (SECOND DEPT).
LACK OF SUPERVISION WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF STUDENT’S FALL, PLAINTIFF WAS ENGAGING IN AGE-APPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR TAKING TURNS JUMPING OVER A KNEE-HIGH FENCE WHEN SHE FELL AND WAS INJURED, SCHOOL DISTRICT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE SEARCH WARRANT DESCRIBED THE RESIDENCE AS HAVING TWO ENTRANCE DOORS, ONE LEADING TO THE AREA WHERE THE INFORMANT SAW THE FIREARMS AND ONE LEADING TO A STAIRWAY TO THE SECOND FLOOR (WHICH THE INFORMANT HAD NOT VISITED), THE WARRANT WAS NOT SEVERABLE AND WAS THEREFORE OVERBROAD (SECOND DEPT). ​
NO PROOF DEFENDANT WAS THE PERSON WITH THE SAME NAME.
THE DISMISSAL OF A FORELCOSURE ACTION ON THE GROUND THE BANK FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT PROVISIONS IN RPAPL 1304 IS NOT AN EXPRESS JUDICIAL DETERMINATION THAT THE ACTION DID NOT VALIDLY ACCELERATE THE DEBT; THEREFORE, HERE, THE 2013 FORECLOSURE ACTION IS TIME-BARRED PURSUANT TO THE FORECLOSURE ABUSE PREVENTION ACT (FAPA) (SECOND DEPT).
Security Guard and College Had No Duty to Protect Taxi Driver from Attack by Students on Campus—Plaintiff Was Not a Third Party Beneficiary of Contract Between Security Company and College
Delaware Pleading Requirements Not Met in Shareholders’ Derivative Action
RESTITUTION ORDERED WAS GREATER THAN THAT AGREED TO IN THE PLEA AGREEMENT; ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED, THE APPEAL WAS CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE; RESTITUTION VACATED AND MATTER REMITTED (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

abor Law Definition of “General Contractor” Applies In Subrogation... One- and Two- Family Homeowners’ Exemption Precluded Labor Law 240 (1)...