You are here: / / LOADING LADDERS ONTO A TRUCK DID NOT CREATE AN ELEVATION-RELATED RISK,...

LOADING LADDERS ONTO A TRUCK DID NOT CREATE AN ELEVATION-RELATED RISK, PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS INJURY.

The First Department determined loading ladders onto a truck did not create an elevation-related risk contemplated by Labor Law 240(1). The ladders slid into plaintiff when plaintiff released a bungee cord. The court further determined plaintiff’s negligence (releasing the bungee cord) was the sole proximate cause of his injury:

The work that plaintiff was engaged in when he was injured, i.e., retrieving ladders that his employer had used in its work at the site, was a construction-related activity covered by Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) … . However, it did not present an elevation-related risk contemplated by Labor Law § 240(1) … . Moreover, in view of plaintiff’s testimony that he did not notice the tilt of the truck onto which he was loading the ladders, any elevation differential resulting from the tilt was de minimis. Nor is Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.7(e), which requires that passageways and working areas be kept free of accumulations of dirt and debris, a proper predicate for plaintiff’s Labor Law § 241(6) claim, since the area outside the gate to the loading dock where plaintiff parked his truck was not a passageway or working area … . * * *

… [T]he record demonstrates as a matter of law that plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his accident … . Although the first ladder that he loaded onto the rack atop the truck slid toward the end of the rack as he loaded it, after plaintiff had secured it with a bungee cord and loaded the second ladder, instead of taking another of the several bungee cords available to him, he unhooked the bungee cord securing the first ladder, intending to wrap it around both ladders, and the ladders slid into him and knocked him off the truck. Guido v Dormitory Auth. of the State of N.Y., 2016 NY Slip Op 08600, 1st Dept 12-22-16

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (LOADING LADDERS ONTO A TRUCK DID NOT CREATE AN ELEVATION-RELATED RISK, PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS INJURY)/TRUCKS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, LOADING LADDERS ONTO A TRUCK DID NOT CREATE AN ELEVATION-RELATED RISK, PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS INJURY)/ELEVATION-RELATED RISK (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, LOADING LADDERS ONTO A TRUCK DID NOT CREATE AN ELEVATION-RELATED RISK, PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS INJURY)/SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, LOADING LADDERS ONTO A TRUCK DID NOT CREATE AN ELEVATION-RELATED RISK, PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS INJURY)

You might also like
PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION; PLAINTIFF FELL 13 OR 14 FEET FROM THE BACK OF A FLATBED TRUCK.
Questions of Fact Remained About Whether the Seller Was “Ready, Willing and Able to Close” and Whether the Seller Had Breached the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing—Supreme Court Should Not Have Granted Summary Judgment to Seller
Clause in Appeal-Waiver Agreement Which Purported to Vacate Plea and Sentence Upon the Filing of a Notice of Appeal Unenforceable
BECAUSE THE RESPONDENT CREATED AMBIGUITY ABOUT WHETHER IT WAS STILL CONSIDERING PETITIONER’S FOIL REQUEST AFTER EXPIRATION OF THE 10-DAY CONSTRUCTIVE-DENIAL PERIOD, THE FOUR-MONTH PERIOD FOR COMMENCING AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING DID NOT START ON THE CONSTRUCTIVE-DENIAL DATE; THE ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING WAS TIMELY COMMENCED (FIRST DEPT).
THE COMMERCIAL LEASE GUARANTEE MET THE DEFINITION OF AN INSTRUMENT FOR THE PAYMENT OF MONEY; THE COVID-19 RESTRICTIONS ON ENFORCEMENT OF COMMERCIAL LEASE GUARANTEES DO NOT APPLY; THE WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY DEFENSE IS NOT AVAILABLE (FIRST DEPT).
THERE IS NO BRIGHT-LINE MINIMUM HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL FOR AN ELEVATION HAZARD PURSUANT TO LABOR LAW 240(1); HERE A FALL OF 10.5 TO 20 INCHES FROM A STACK OF PALLETS WARRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).
THE INSURED DID NOT SHOW UP FOR THE SCHEDULED INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMS IN THIS NO-FAULT POLICY CASE, ARBITRATOR’S AWARD IRRATIONALLY IGNORED THE CONTROLLING LAW (FIRST DEPT).
AN INQUIRY INTO DEFENDANT’S MENTAL HEALTH WAS REQUIRED BEFORE ALLOWING DEFENDANT TO REPRESENT HIMSELF; THE RESULTS OF CPL ARTICLE 730 EXAMS, OF WHICH THE PRESIDING JUDGE WAS NOT MADE AWARE AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST TO PROCEED PRO SE, INDICATING DEFENDANT MAY BE DELUSIONAL, CONSTITUTED ‘RED FLAGS’ WARRANTING THE INQUIRY (FIRST 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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

CEREMONIAL MARRIAGE SUFFICIENTLY PROVEN, CHILD ENTITLED TO SUPPORT. FALSE ARREST AND 42 USC 1983 CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, ARREST...