You are here: / / Plaintiff, Who Fell Through an Open Manhole, Entitled to Summary Judgment...

Plaintiff, Who Fell Through an Open Manhole, Entitled to Summary Judgment on Labor Law 240 (1) Cause of Action—Failure to Set Up Guard Rails Was a Proximate Cause–Liability Imposed Regardless of Plaintiff’s Own Negligence and Regardless of Whether the Owner, Contractor or Agent Supervised or Controlled the Work

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, over a two-judge dissent, determined plaintiff, who fell through an uncovered manhole, was entitled to partial summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) claim based on testimony the manhole should have been surrounded by guard rails. The court also determined there was a question of fact whether the safety consultant, IMS, was liable as a “statutory agent” under Labor Law 240 (1). The court explained that the obligation to provide safety devices is a nondelegable duty which imposes liability regardless of whether owner, contractor or agent supervises or controls the work. Where 240 (1) is violated, the plaintiff's negligence is not a defense, unless plaintiff's negligence is the sole proximate cause of the injury:

Section 240 (1) provides, in relevant part:

“All contractors and owners and their agents . . . in the erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning or pointing of a building or structure shall furnish or erect, or cause to be furnished or erected for the performance of such labor [certain enumerated] [*4]and other devices which shall be so constructed, placed and operated as to give proper protection to a person so employed.”

The statute imposes upon owners, contractors and their agents a nondelegable duty that renders them liable regardless of whether they supervise or control the work … . “Where an accident is caused by a violation of the statute, the plaintiff's own negligence will not furnish a defense”; however, “where a plaintiff's own actions are the sole proximate cause of the accident, there can be no liability” … . Thus, in order to recover under section 240 (1), the plaintiff must establish that the statute was violated and that such violation was a proximate cause of his injury … . Barreto v Metropolitan Tr. Auth., 2015 NY Slip Op 03875, CtApp 5-7-15

 

You might also like
“Outing” Confidential Informant Online Constituted Witness Tampering
Conviction for Selling T-Shirts without a Vendor’s License Upheld—Constitutional Expression vs. Commercial Enterprise
Judge Effectively Rescinded the Initial Declaration of a Mistrial and Left the Decision Whether to Declare a Mistrial Up to the Defendant—Because the Defendant Ultimately Agreed to the Mistrial the Double Jeopardy Prohibition Was Not Triggered
IN A TAX FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING, EVIDENCE THE LETTERS PROVIDING NOTICE OF THE FORECLOSURE WERE NOT RETURNED TO THE TAXING AUTHORITY DOES NOT PRECLUDE RAISING A QUESTION OF FACT WITH PROOF NOTICE WAS NOT RECEIVED (CT APP). ​
FOREIGN DEFENDANTS’ USE OF A NEW YORK CORRESPONDENT BANK ACCOUNT IN A SWISS BANK PROVIDED JURISDICTION OVER A LAWSUIT AGAINST THE BANK BY A SAUDI NATIONAL.
Uncharged Crime Evidence (911 Call) Admissible to Explain Aggressive Actions of Police
Assignment of Counsel Required Before Determining Whether Appeal Should Be Dismissed as Untimely
NYC Department of Education Must Defend Employees Sued for Alleged Use of Corporal Punishment

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

State’s Decrease in Its Contribution to Judges’ Health Care Insurance... 120-Day Time Limit for Bringing a Summary Judgment Motion Properly Extended...