You are here: / / Fall from Flatbed Truck Was Covered by Labor Law 240 (1)—Fall Caused...

Fall from Flatbed Truck Was Covered by Labor Law 240 (1)—Fall Caused by Gravity Acting On Plywood Being Hoisted from the Truck

The Fourth Department determined plaintiff was entitled to partial summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) claim.  Plaintiff fell from a flatbed truck while trying to steady plywood which became unsteady while being hoisted:

Although flatbed trucks “d[o] not present the kind of elevation-related risk that the statute contemplates” (Toefer v Long Is. R.R., 4 NY3d 399, 408), the accident in this case was caused by a falling object, which distinguishes this case from Toefer … . The accident that caused plaintiff’s injuries “flow[ed] directly from the application of the force of gravity to the object” … . In other words, the injuries were the result of “the direct consequence of a failure to provide statutorily required protection against a risk plainly arising from a workplace elevation differential” … . Inasmuch as plaintiff established that the plywood fell while being hoisted because of the absence or inadequacy of a safety device of the kind enumerated in the statute, we conclude that he is entitled to summary judgment on the section 240 (1) claim … . Hyatt v Young, 2014 NY Slip Op 03056, 4th Dept 5-2-14

 

You might also like
AN APPELLATE COURT CANNOT CONSIDER A MOTION NOT RULED UPON BELOW; MATTER REMITTED FOR A RULING ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR A TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL (FOURTH DEPT).
IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE PEOPLE’S CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH THEIR DISCOVERY OBLIGATIONS WAS VALID THE MOTION COURT RULED THE PEOPLE HAD ACTED IN GOOD FAITH; THE MATTER WAS REMITTED FOR THE APPLICATION OF THE CORRECT STANDARD: WHETHER THE PEOPLE ACTED WITH DUE DILIGENCE AND MADE REASONABLE EFFORTS TO SATISFIY THEIR OBLIGATIONS (FOURTH DEPT).
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT SUBCONTRACTOR DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO SUPERVISE OR CONTROL THE WORK THAT CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S INJURY; THEREFORE THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 200 CAUSES OF ACTION WERE PROPERLY DISMISSED AND THE COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).
MOTION TO RENEW, BASED UPON A CHANGE IN THE LAW, MADE WHEN THE CASE WAS NO LONGER PENDING, WAS UNTIMELY (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENSE COUNSEL MISTAKENLY FAILED TO NOTIFY THE PROSECUTION OF AN ALIBI WITNESS; DEFENSE COUNSEL ADMITTED HE HAD NO EXCUSE FOR HIS MISTAKE; BECAUSE THE FAILURE WAS NOT DELIBERATE AND WAS NOT AN ATTEMPT TO GAIN A TACTICAL ADVANTAGE, THE DEFENSE MOTION FOR PERMISSION TO SERVE A LATE NOTICE OF ALIBI SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT),
Employer Not Required to Accommodate Employee with Epilepsy with Permanent Light-Duty Assignment
Conspiracy to Commit Tort Not Recognized in New York
A COUNTY RECYCLING TRUCK IS NOT ENGAGED IN ROAD WORK AND THEREFORE IS NOT EXEMPT FROM THE RULES OF THE ROAD UNDER THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW (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

Failure to Instruct the Jury on the Sole Proximate Cause Defense Required Reversal... Records of Pedigree Information Which Was Linked to the Defendant and Was Supplied...