You are here: / / INJURY WHILE LIFTING A HEAVY OBJECT FROM A HORIZONTAL TO A VERTICAL POSITION...

INJURY WHILE LIFTING A HEAVY OBJECT FROM A HORIZONTAL TO A VERTICAL POSITION NOT ENCOMPASSED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1) (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this Labor Law 240 (1) action should have been granted. Plaintiff was injured when a heavy objected being lifted from a horizontal to a vertical position shifted momentarily. The Fourth Department found that the activity during which plaintiff was injured did not involve a risk covered by Labor Law 240 (1):

​

“Liability may . . . be imposed under [Labor Law § 240 (1)] only where the plaintiff’s injuries were the direct consequence of a failure to provide adequate protection against a risk arising from a physically significant elevation differential’ ” … . “Consequently, the protections of [the statute] do not encompass any and all perils that may be connected in some tangential way with the effects of gravity’ ” … . Rather, the statute “was designed to prevent those types of accidents in which the scaffold, hoist, stay, ladder or other protective device proved inadequate to shield the injured worker from harm directly flowing from the application of the force of gravity to an object or person” … .

Here, the harm to plaintiff was not “the direct consequence of a failure to provide adequate protection against a risk arising from a physically significant elevation differential” … ; rather, the submissions establish that plaintiff was injured while lifting the heavy switchgear segment when the weight thereof momentarily shifted to his side as a result of instability or a slight downward movement of half an inch on the coworker’s side … . Although plaintiff’s back injury “was tangentially related to the effects of gravity upon the [switchgear segment that] he was lifting, it was not caused by the limited type of elevation-related hazards encompassed by Labor Law § 240 (1)” … . We thus conclude that defendants established as a matter of law that plaintiff’s injuries resulted from a “routine workplace risk[]” of a construction site and not a “pronounced risk[] arising from construction work site elevation differentials” … . Horton v Board of Educ. of Campbell-Savona Cent. Sch. Dist., 2017 NY Slip Op 07806, Fourth Dept 11-9-17

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (INJURY WHILE LIFTING A HEAVY OBJECT FROM A HORIZONTAL TO A VERTICAL POSITION NOT ENCOMPASSED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1) (FOURTH DEPT)

You might also like
SOLAR AND WIND EASEMENTS, WHICH WERE RECORDED AFTER THE MORTGAGES, ARE SUBJECT TO FORECLOSURE.
REMOVING ICE AND SNOW FROM THE ROOF OF A COMMERCIAL BUILDING IS COVERED UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1), IT DOESN’T MATTER WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED FROM THE FALL FROM THE BUCKET OF THE BACKHOE OR FROM BEING STRUCK BY THE BACKHOE (WHICH WAS BEING USED TO LIFT PLAINTIFF TO THE ROOF), PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
DISCOVERY REQUESTS AIMED AT AN ISSUE WHICH WAS ADMITTED BY DEFENDANTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; BECAUSE THE ALTERNATIVE ARGUMENT FOR THE DISCOVERY REQUESTS WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY A MEMO IN THE RECORD DEMONSTRATING THE ISSUE WAS PRESERVED, THE ARGUMENT WAS REJECTED (FOURTH DEPT).
HERE THE VILLAGE SOUGHT TO ANNUL THE CITY’S IMPOSITION OF HIGHER SEWER CHARGES; THE CITY INTERPOSED SEVERAL COUNTERCLAIMS THAT WERE BASED ON THEORIES NOT INCLUDED IN THE CITY’S EARLIER NOTICE OF CLAIM WHICH ALLEGED ONLY BREACH OF CONTRACT; BECAUSE THE COUNTERCLAIMS RAISED THEORIES NOT ENCOMPASSED BY THE CITY’S EARLIER NOTICE OF CLAIM, THEY WERE DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).
Trial Judge’s Acceptance of Petitioner’s Expert’s Valuation of the Property Was Against the Weight of the Evidence—the Actual Purchase Price in a Recent Sale and the Actual Rent Should Have Been Part of the Analysis
SUPREME COURT ERRED IN ORDERING DISCLOSURE OF SOME OF THE INSURER’S RECORDS AND MATERIALS, INCLUDING LEGAL OPINION OF OUTSIDE COUNSEL (FOURTH DEPT).
EVIDENCE OF ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OF THE PARKING LOT WHERE PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY FELL, I.E. EVIDENCE OF HABIT, PROPERLY ADMITTED IN THIS ICE AND SNOW SLIP AND FALL CASE (FOURTH DEPT).
SUPREME COURT WENT BEYOND THE PARAMETERS OF THE REMITTAL BY ACCEPTING SUPPLEMENTAL ARGUMENTS ON NEW CASE LAW AND BY RENDERING A DECISION ON GROUNDS NOT INCLUDED IN THE REMITTAL; DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT REVERSED, DEFAMATION CAUSES OF ACTION REINSTATED (FOURTH 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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PRIME CONTRACTOR DID NOT CONTRACT WITH PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER, DID NOT SUPERVISE... POLICE OFFICER DID NOT ACT IN RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR SAFETY IN THIS INTERSECTION...