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
EVIDENCE OF PRIOR BAD ACTS BY DEFENDANT PHYSICIAN SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT REVERSED.
Defendant Should Not Have Been Denied His Right to Testify Before the Grand Jury Because He Struck Out Waiver Provisions Not Required by Statute
THE 2022 CONGRESSIONAL AND STATE SENATE REDISTRICTING MAPS DECLARED VOID BECAUSE THEY WERE DRAWN WITH AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL PARTISAN INTENT (CT APP). ​
PETITIONER WAS INITIALLY APPROVED FOR PAROLE, BUT AFTER THE VICTIM IMPACT HEARING A RESCISSION HEARING WAS HELD AND PAROLE WAS RESCINDED; THE RESCISSION WAS PROPERLY BASED UPON VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENTS SUPPLYING INFORMATION WHICH WAS NOT “NEW” BUT WHICH WAS NOT PREVIOUSLY KNOWN TO THE PAROLE BOARD (CT APP).
TOWN PROPERLY DISSOLVED THE EXISTING FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT AND CREATED TWO NEW FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICTS (CT APP).
The Acts of Applying for a Fake Non-Driver ID Card and Possessing the Fake Non-Driver ID Card Upon Arrest (Four-Months After Submitting the Application) Did Not Constitute a Single Criminal Venture—the Prohibition Against Double Jeopardy Did Not Preclude the Second Charge
IN THIS SUIT BY YELLOW CAB MEDALLION OWNERS AGAINST THE NYC TAXI AND LIMOUSINE COMMISSION, PLAINTIFFS DID NOT STATE A CLAIM FOR BREACH OF AN IMPLIED COVENANT AND GOOD FAITH OR DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES; PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS WERE BASED UPON DEFENDANTS’ ALLEGED FAILURE TO REGULATE COMPETING SERVICES LIKE UBER AND LYFT (CT APP).
NYC Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC) Had the Authority to Enter a 10-Year Exclusive Agreement with Nissan for the Production of the “Taxi of Tomorrow (T o T),” NYC’s Official Taxicab

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

Copyright © 2023 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
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...