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
LATE FEES IMPOSED BY THE LANDLORD MAY CONSTITUTE USURIOUS INTEREST; APPEAL HEARD DESPITE PRO SE DEFENDANT-TENANT’S FAILURE TO PERFECT THE APPEAL; THE APPEAL RAISED A PURELY LEGAL ISSUE WHICH IS DETERMINATIVE (FIRST DEPT).
Plaintiff Estopped from Bringing State Retaliation Claim/Issue Decided by District Court Which Dismissed Plaintiff’s Federal Title VII Constructive Discharge Claim
Increasing Defendant’s Risk Level Based Upon His Mental Retardation Was an Abuse of Discretion
STIPULATION WHICH DID NOT SPECIFICALLY CALL FOR A REDUCTION OF CHILD SUPPORT UPON THE EMANCIPATION OF THE OLDEST CHILD WOULD NOT BE INTERPRETED OTHERWISE.
DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT TOOK ADEQUATE MEASURES TO KEEP THE FLOOR DRY, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION BY GUILTY PLEA ON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE GROUNDS WAS PROPERLY DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING; THE TWO DISSENTERS ARGUED THE PRO SE MOTION WAS SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT A HEARING, DESPITE THE TECHNICAL DEFECTS (FOURTH DEPT).
VENUE WAS IMPROPER; DEFENDANTS FOLLOWED THE STATUTORY PROCEDURE AND MOVED FOR A CHANGE OF VENUE; NO OTHER PARTY MOVED FOR A CHANGE OF VENUE; THE MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
THE FORECLOSURE ABUSE PREVENTION ACT (FAPA) APPLIES RETROACTIVELY; THE DEFENDANT MORTGAGE COMPANY IS ESTOPPED BY CPLR 213(4)(A) FROM ASSERTING THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR A FORECLOSURE HAS NOT EXPIRED; PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT SEEKING DISCHARGE AND CANCELLATION OF THE MORTGAGE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (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...