You are here: / / PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF...

PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, HEAVY ROLL OF WIRE FELL BECAUSE OF ABSENCE OF A SAFETY DEVICE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action. Plaintiff was injured when a heavy roll of wire fell as it was being moved up a ramp made of planks in a loading area:

​

Plaintiff established entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability where he was injured during the course of his employment when a reel of electrical wire weighing 500 to 1,000 pounds fell and struck his foot. Workers were rolling the reel up two wooden planks for loading onto a van when it fell, and although there are questions as to whether plaintiff was actually involved in moving the reel, plaintiff demonstrated that he sustained injuries from the falling reel due to absence of an adequate safety device… .

Defendants and third-party defendants (collectively defendants) fail to raise a triable issue of fact. They contend that issues exist as to whether a forklift was available onsite, and whether plaintiff was a recalcitrant worker for failing to use it despite being aware of it… . However, even if a forklift was available and plaintiff was aware of it, defendants have not offered evidence showing that he was actually instructed to use it… . Rather, it is undisputed that plaintiff’s foreman had instructed the workers to move the reel as they did, and to the extent defendants rely on the testimony of plaintiff’s employer that plaintiff was not to blindly follow the foreman’s instructions, such overlooks the realities of construction work … .

Nor is there a triable issue as to whether plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of the accident. Even assuming that plaintiff did assist in moving the reel and in the course of doing so, removed his hand from the reel, such was not the sole proximate cause of the accident, as he was not provided with an adequate safety device to hoist the reel in the first instance … .

The contention that Labor Law § 240(1) is inapplicable because the loading of the reel did not fall within the scope of construction work, is unavailing. Although it was not actual construction work, and occurred in the loading area of the construction site, it was still part of the construction project … . Gutierrez v 451 Lexington Realty LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 08475, First Dept 12-5-17

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, HEAVY ROLL OF WIRE FELL BECAUSE OF ABSENCE OF A SAFETY DEVICE (FIRST DEPT))

You might also like
Defendant Was Not Plaintiff’s “Special Employer”
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SITE SAFETY CONSULTANT EXERCISED SUFFICIENT CONTROL OVER PLAINTIFF’S WORK TO BE LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 200.
Unlike a “State Human Rights Law” Cause of Action, a “New York City Human Rights Law” Cause of Action Is Supported If Racial Bias Played “Any Role” (As Opposed to a “Motivating and Substantial Role”) In the Discriminatory Action
THE WAIVER OF APPEAL WAS INVALID; THE SUPPRESSION MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED ON A GROUND NOT RAISED BY THE PEOPLE; AND AN APPELLATE COURT CAN NOT CONSIDER ARGUMENTS ON ISSUES NOT RULED ON BELOW (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH AN INDICTMENT NEED NOT ALLEGE ACCESSORIAL LIABILITY TO BE LEGALLY SUFFICIENT; WHERE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE A DEFENDANT ACTED AS A PRINCIPAL THE JURY MUST BE INSTRUCTED ON ACCESSORIAL LIABILITY; THE FAILURE TO SO INSTRUCT THE JURY HERE RENDERED THE CONVICTION AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER BRICKS WHICH STRUCK PLAINTIFF WERE DELIBERATELY DROPPED, WHICH WOULD NOT BE COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1) (FIRST DEPT).
THE FRAUDULENT-CONVEYANCE CAUSES OF ACTION INVOLVED CONNECTICUT PROPERTIES AND WERE TIME-BARRED IN CONNECTICUT; NEW YORK’S BORROWING STATUTE RENDERED THE ACTIONS TIME-BARRED IN NEW YORK (FIRST DEPT).
THE NYC HUMAN RESOURCES ADMINISTRATION (HRA) WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ANY OF THE PROCEEDS OF PLAINTIFF’S CAR-ACCIDENT SETTLEMENT BECAUSE THE SETTLEMENT DID NOT INCLUDE MEDICAL EXPENSES; PLAINTIFF WAS BARRED FROM RECOVERY OF MEDICAL COSTS BECAUSE HER BASIC ECONOMIC LOSS WAS LESS THAN $50,000 (INS LAW 5102) (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 © 2024 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER BRICKS WHICH STRUCK PLAINTIFF WERE DELIBERATELY DROPPED,... QUESTION FACT ABOUT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE IN THIS...