You are here: / / Slip and Fall On Ice While Wearing Stilts Not an Elevation-Related Event...

Slip and Fall On Ice While Wearing Stilts Not an Elevation-Related Event within Meaning of Labor Law 240 (1)

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Stein, over a dissent, determined that a slip and fall caused by ice on the floor was not an elevation-related event within the meaning of Labor 240(1), despite the fact the worker was using stilts when he slipped and fell:

… [T]he protections of Labor Law § 240 (1) “do not encompass any and all perils that may be connected in some tangential way with the effects of gravity” … . “Rather, liability [remains] contingent upon the existence of a hazard contemplated in section 240 (1) and the failure to use, or the inadequacy of, a safety device of the kind enumerated therein” … . Moreover, section 240 (1) is not applicable unless the plaintiff’s injuries result from the elevation-related risk and the inadequacy of the safety device … . * * *

Here, plaintiff’s accident was plainly caused by a separate hazard — ice — unrelated to any elevation risk. Plaintiff testified that stilts were the appropriate device for the type of work that he was undertaking, given the height of this particular ceiling. Plaintiff’s testimony further established that it was the ice — not a deficiency or inadequacy of the stilts — that caused his fall. Nicometi v Vineyards of Fredonia, LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 02801 CtApp 4-2-15

 

You might also like
Defendant’s Having Unprotected Sex with Partner After Defendant’s HIV-Positive Diagnosis Did Not Constitute “Depraved Indifference”
QUESTIONS WHETHER PROSPECTIVE JURORS COULD DISREGARD AN INVOLUNTARY CONFESSION SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED, CONVICTION REVERSED.
Reversing Its Prior Decision in this Case, the Court of Appeals Determined the “Servidone” Rule Is to Be Followed in New York/An Insurer Which Has Breached Its Duty to Defend the Insured May Rely On Policy Exclusions to Escape Its Duty to Indemnify the Insured
SUPPRESSION OF ALL EVIDENCE IN THIS TRAFFIC STOP CASE AFFIRMED, EXTENSIVE DISSENT QUESTIONED CONTINUED VIABILITY OF THE DEBOUR STREET STOP ANALYSIS, ORAL SUPPRESSION RULING APPEALABLE (CT APP).
Trial Judge’s Participation in Readbacks Not Mode of Proceedings Error
AFTER A SPECTATOR ALERTED THE COURT JURORS HAD BEEN OVERHEARD REFERRING TO THE DEFENDANT IN DEROGATORY TERMS THE TRIAL JUDGE QUESTIONED THE SPECTATOR BUT TOOK NO FURTHER ACTION, MATTER REMITTED TO THE APPELLATE DIVISION FOR A DETERMINATION WHETHER THE TRIAL JUDGE’S ASSESSMENT OF THE CREDIBILITY OF THE SPECTATOR WAS SUPPORTED BY THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (CT APP).
In a Risk Level Modification Proceeding, a Defendant Is Entitled to All the Documents Reviewed by the Board
“Continuity” Element of a Criminal Enterprise Explained—Substantive Arguments Re: the Erroneous Use of “And” Instead of “Or” In the Jury Instructions and the “Ineffective Assistance” Stemming from the Failure to Object to the Instructions–the Majority Held the Error Was Not Preserved and the Seriousness of the Error Was Not So Clear-Cut as to Implicate Ineffective Assistance–the Dissent Argued the Jury-Instruction Error Was Preserved and Was Reversible

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

Misrepresentations About Expunged Drug-Related Offenses on Student’s Law... Work on Billboard Was “Alteration” within Meaning of Labor Law 240...