You are here: / / Maneuvering a Heavy Door from a Scissors Lift to the Door Opening on the...

Maneuvering a Heavy Door from a Scissors Lift to the Door Opening on the Second Floor Was Not an Elevation-Related Risk within the Meaning of Labor Law 240(1)/Nature of Labor Law 200 Action Explained

The Fourth Department determined maneuvering a heavy door across a two-foot gap between the scissors lift on which plaintiff was standing and the door opening on the second floor was not an elevation-related risk within the meaning of Labor Law 240(1).   Plaintiff’s Labor Law 200 and common law negligence causes of action, however, survived defendant’s summary judgment motion:

“Labor Law § 200 is a codification of the common-law duty imposed upon an owner or general contractor to provide employees with a safe place to work” … . The duty does not, however, “extend to hazards which are part of or inherent in the very work which the contractor is to perform’ ” … . Here, plaintiff’s accident resulted from the manner in which the work was performed, and it is undisputed that defendant had the authority to supervise and control the methods and manner of plaintiff’s work, and that it in fact exercised such supervisory control … . Contrary to defendant’s contention, we conclude that defendant failed to establish as a matter of law that the risk of injury owing to moving a heavy door across a two-foot gap while at an elevated height with the assistance of a single worker was “inherent in plaintiff’s work” … . We agree with defendant, however, that the court erred in denying that part of its motion and granting that part of plaintiffs’ cross motion with respect to the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, and we therefore modify the order accordingly. “The extraordinary protections of Labor Law § 240 (1) extend only to a narrow class of special hazards, and do not encompass any and all perils that may be connected in some tangential way with the effects of gravity’ ” … . Rather, the statute “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” … . Here, plaintiff injured his back while maneuvering a heavy door across a lateral gap; the door did not fall or descend even a de minimis distance owing to the application of the force of gravity upon it … . Although “the injured plaintiff’s back injury was tangentially related to the effects of gravity upon” the door he was lifting, “it was not caused by the limited type of elevation-related hazards encompassed by Labor Law § 240 (1)” … . We thus conclude that the hazard at issue here, i.e., lifting or carrying a heavy object across a lateral gap, even while positioned at a height, is a “routine workplace risk[]” of a construction site and not a “pronounced risk[] arising from construction work site elevation differentials” … . Carr v McHugh Painting Co., Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 02584, 4th Dept 3-27-15

 

You might also like
THE PARTY WHO BROUGHT THE WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION WAS NOT A PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF DECEDENT’S ESTATE AND THEREFORE DID NOT HAVE STANDING; BECAUSE THE PARTY HAD NO RIGHT TO SUE, “SUBSTITUTION” OF THE EXECUTORS FOR THAT PARTY WAS NOT AVAILABLE (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S STARING AT THE POLICE FROM ACROSS THE ROAD DID NOT JUSTIFY THE INITIAL APPROACH BY THE POLICE, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED AND INDICTMENT FOR POSSESSION OF A WEAPON SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED.
DEFENDANT TOLD THE POLICE HE DIDN’T WANT TO TALK, HIS STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED BUT THE ERROR WAS HARMLESS; CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES FOR POSSESSION OF THE KNIFE AND MURDER BY STABBING FOUND PROPER (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT OFFERED A NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION OF THE REAR-END COLLISION, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFF TRAMPLED BY TWO HORSES, STRICT LIABILITY ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE TERMS OF THE NOTE REFLECTED THE ACTUAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES (MUTUAL MISTAKE) (FOURTH DEPT).
BEFORE GRANTING THE AREA VARIANCE, THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DID NOT REFER THE APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING BOARD AS REQUIRED BY THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW; THE DETERMINATION WAS ANNULLED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE MAJORITY DETERMINED THE PEOPLE DID NOT EXERCISE DUE DILIGENCE IN LOCATING REQUESTED DISCOVERY MATERIALS; THE INDICTMENT WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED ON SPEEDY TRIAL GROUNDS; A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED THE TIME WHEN THE OMNIBUS MOTIONS WERE UNDER CONSIDERATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CHARGED TO THE PEOPLE (FOURTH 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

After Hours Off-Premises Fight With Co-Employee Can Constitute Disqualifying... Line Between Inadmissible Testimonial (Hearsay) Statements and Admissible Non-Testimonial...