You are here: / / Failure to Instruct the Jury on the Sole Proximate Cause Defense Required...

Failure to Instruct the Jury on the Sole Proximate Cause Defense Required Reversal of Plaintiff’s Verdict

The Fourth Department, over a dissent, reversed the judgment for the plaintiff and ordered a new trial finding that the trial judge should have instructed the jury on the sole proximate cause defense.  The plaintiff used a wobbly ladder while painting and fell. The trial judge felt that the sole proximate cause defense (i.e., that the plaintiff’s acts or omissions were the sole proximate cause of the accident) would have been triggered only if the plaintiff ignored an instruction to use a different ladder. The Fourth Department explained that the defense could also be triggered if the plaintiff knew he had other options available but chose to use the wobbly ladder:

…[T]he court held that plaintiff’s choice of ladder could not be the sole proximate cause of his injuries unless he had been told to use another safety device and had ignored that directive. That was an incorrect statement of the law inasmuch as it is not necessary that a plaintiff be told to use another safety device. Rather, there will be no liability imposed on a defendant if the defendant establishes that the plaintiff knew he should use another safety device and knew that such was available at the job site, but chose not to use it … . * * *

As the Court of Appeals held …, in order for there to be liability under section 240 (1), “the owner or contractor must breach the statutory duty under section 240 (1) to provide a worker with adequate safety devices, and this breach must proximately cause the worker’s injuries. These prerequisites do not exist if adequate safety devices are available at the job site, but the worker either does not use or misuses them” … . Piotrowski v McGuire Manor Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 03045, 4th Dept 5-2-14

 

You might also like
Defendant Should Have Been Allowed to Present Expert Opinion-Evidence About the Reliability of Eyewitness Identification
AN OFFICER MAY FOLLOW A SUSPECT IN A POLICE VEHICLE; THE OFFICER DID NOT GET OUT OF HIS VEHICLE AND CHASE THE DEFENDANT UNTIL HE SAW THE DEFENDANT DISCARD A WEAPON; THE SEIZURE OF THE WEAPON WAS NOT THE RESULT OF UNLAWFUL POLICE CONDUCT (FOURTH DEPT).
JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DRAWN AN ADVERSE INFERENCE AGAINST FATHER BASED UPON FATHER’S FAILURE TO CALL HIS GIRLFRIEND AS A WITNESS WITHOUT FIRST INFORMING FATHER AND GIVING FATHER A CHANCE TO EXPLAIN, ERROR DEEMED HARMLESS HOWEVER (FOURTH DEPT).
Pleading Requirements for “Goods Sold and Delivered” Cause of Action Succinctly Explained
PURSUANT TO THE EMERGENCY OR DISASTER TREATMENT PROTECTION ACT (EDTPA), HEALTH CARE WORKERS WHO TREATED COVID-19 PATIENTS WERE IMMUNE FROM CIVIL LIABILITY; THE EDTPA HAS SINCE BEEN REPEALED; THE REPEAL SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY; THE CAUSES OF ACTION ALLEGING IMPROPER TREATMENT FOR COVID-19 DURING THE TIME THE EDTPA WAS IN EFFECT MUST BE DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).
LAW FIRM ASSOCIATE WAS ENTITLED TO 5% OF $5 MILLION FEE UNDER A BREACH OF ORAL CONTRACT THEORY, BUT NOT UNDER A LABOR LAW 190 THEORY (FOURTH DEPT).
THE JUDGE DID NOT MAKE THE REQUIRED INQUIRY TO ENSURE DEFENDANT’S WAIVER OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL FOR THE SORA HEARING WAS KNOWING, INTELLIGENT AND VOLUNTARY; THE NOTICE OF THE SORA HEARING PROVIDED TO DEFENDANT WAS INADEQUATE (FOURTH DEPT).
THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE FINDING THAT FATHER ABANDONED THE CHILD, THE PERMANENT NEGLECT FINDING, HOWEVER, WAS SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE (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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Evidence of Headaches Did Not Raise an Issue of Fact Re: “Serious Inj... Fall from Flatbed Truck Was Covered by Labor Law 240 (1)—Fall Caused by...