You are here: / / BUILDING OWNER LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) FOR INJURY CAUSED BY FALLING ...

BUILDING OWNER LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) FOR INJURY CAUSED BY FALLING ELEVATOR.

The First Department determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. Plaintiff, McCrea, was repairing an elevator when it fell on him. The court explained the relevant law, including the criteria for demonstrating an injured worker's actions were the sole proximate cause of the injury:

The evidence here establishes that at the time of the accident, McCrea was engaged in “repair” work because the elevator's safety shoes were not operating properly, and the condition was an isolated event, unrelated to normal wear and tear … . In addition, the elevator was a “falling object” within the meaning of the Labor Law, even though it was not actually being hoisted or secured at the time of the accident, because it required securing for the purpose of McCrea's repair work … .

As plaintiff was engaged in activity protected by Labor Law § 240(1) at the time of the incident, Arnlie, as owner of the building, is subject to absolute liability for injuries which resulted from its failure to provide plaintiff with proper safety devices …, without regard to the comparative fault of plaintiff … . Where the worker is the sole proximate cause of the injury, however, the premises owner will not be liable … . “[T]o raise a triable issue of fact as to whether a plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of an accident, the defendant must produce evidence that adequate safety devices were available, that the plaintiff knew that they were available and was expected to use them, and that the plaintiff unreasonably chose not to do so, causing the injury sustained” … .

Here, there is no indication that plaintiff refused or misused available safety equipment. McCrea v Arnlie Realty Co. LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 04330, 1st Dept 6-7-16

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (BUILDING OWNER LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) FOR INJURY CAUSED BY FALLING ELEVATOR)/ELEVATORS (BUILDING OWNER LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) FOR INJURY CAUSED BY FALLING ELEVATOR)

You might also like
Violent Felony Conviction for which Defendant Not Yet Sentenced Can Be Considered in SORA Assessment
ALTHOUGH THERE IS EVIDENCE THE STORM IN PROGRESS DOCTRINE MAY APPLY IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE CONDITION OF THE WALKWAY BEFORE THE STORM, ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S TESTIMONY STRAINED CREDULITY, IT WAS NOT INCREDIBLE AS A MATTER OF LAW (FIRST DEPT).
THE SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE AFFECTED ONLY THE COUNTERCLAIMS, STRIKING THE ENTIRE ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS WAS TOO SEVERE A SANCTION (FIRST DEPT).
THE ARBITRATION AWARD IS VALID EVEN IF BASED ON AN ERROR OF LAW OR FACT; THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE A LETTER OF ENGAGEMENT DID NOT PRECLUDE THE ATTORNEY’S ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT; CPLR 5225 DOES NOT REQUIRE A SPECIAL PROCEEDING TO ENFORCE THE JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).
Failure of Freezer to Properly Cool Baked Goods Was an “Occurrence” (I.e., “Accident”) within the Meaning of the Commercial General Liability Policy
DEFENDANT ABSCONDED DURING TRIAL, WAS INVOLUNTARILY RETURNED ON A WARRANT 20 YEARS LATER, AND FILED HIS APPELLATE BRIEF 30 YEARS AFTER CONVICTION, APPEAL DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE (FIRST DEPT).
FAILURE TO TIE OFF HARNESS WAS NOT THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL, DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF KNEW OF A SAFE PLACE TO TIE OFF, PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION.
THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT APPORTIONING LIABILITY TO THE GYNECOLOGIST WHO NOTED IN HIS REPORT HE FOUND “NO ABNORMALITIES” SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; PLAINTIFF DID NOT PROVE THE NOTATION MISLED THE PRIMARY CARE PHYICIAN RESULTING IN A DELAY IN DIAGNOSING APPENDICITIS (FIRST DEPT).

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

FEDERAL CONVICTION FOR FAILING TO REGISTER AS A SEX OFFENDER WAS NOT A QUALIFYING... TOWN DID NOT ADDRESS ALL THEORIES OF LIABILITY RAISED BY THE PLEADINGS IN THIS...