You are here: / / ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF FELL OFF A LOADING DOCK WHILE WAITING TO SIGN IN TO...

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF FELL OFF A LOADING DOCK WHILE WAITING TO SIGN IN TO WORK IN A BUILDING, HIS INJURY OCCURRED AT THE CONSTRUCTION SITE AND WHILE HE WAS ENGAGED IN WORK INVOLVING A GRAVITY-RELATED RISK WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, over a two-justice dissent, determined the motion to dismiss plaintiff’s Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action was properly denied. Plaintiff fell off a loading platform while waiting to sign in to work painting upper floors of a building. The dissent argued that plaintiff was not at the construction site, within the meaning of the statute, at the time of the injury:

​

Rather than isolating the moment of a plaintiff’s injury, the general context of the work is what should be taken into account … . Clearly, at the time of the accident, plaintiff was entering the building and reporting to the construction site through the only means of access the owner made available to him and all other construction workers. Arguments that plaintiff’s injury did not occur at a “construction site,” under the circumstance of this case, places an unintended limitation on Labor Law § 240(1).

While at the precise moment of plaintiff’s injury he was awaiting clearance to enter the building and he slipped or fell off a permanent structure, there is no merit to [defendant’s] further contention that plaintiff was not actually engaged in work involving a gravity-related risk … . We have held that injuries sustained while a worker was on site, although entering or exiting the site, or on a break, come within the protections of Labor Law § 240(1) … . It is, therefore, of no moment the elevated loading dock is a permanent fixture that existed before the project began … . Hoyos v NY-1095 Ave. of the Ams., LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 08717, First Dept 12-14-17

 

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF FELL OFF A LOADING DOCK WHILE WAITING TO SIGN IN TO WORK IN A BUILDING, HIS INJURY OCCURRED AT THE CONSTRUCTION SITE AND WHILE HE WAS ENGAGED IN WORK INVOLVING A GRAVITY-RELATED RISK WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) (FIRST DEPT))/CONSTRUCTION SITE (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF FELL OFF A LOADING DOCK WHILE WAITING TO SIGN IN TO WORK IN A BUILDING, HIS INJURY OCCURRED AT THE CONSTRUCTION SITE AND WHILE HE WAS ENGAGED IN WORK INVOLVING A GRAVITY-RELATED RISK WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) (FIRST DEPT))GRAVITY-RELATED RISK (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF FELL OFF A LOADING DOCK WHILE WAITING TO SIGN IN TO WORK IN A BUILDING, HIS INJURY OCCURRED AT THE CONSTRUCTION SITE AND WHILE HE WAS ENGAGED IN WORK INVOLVING A GRAVITY-RELATED RISK WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) (FIRST DEPT))

/by
You might also like
PLAINTIFF, WHO TRIPPED ON AN EXTENSION CORD AND FELL DOWN A STAIRWELL, WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).
THE ABSENCE FROM THE JURY CHARGE OF AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF ATTEMPTED ROBBERY FIRST DEGREE (ACTUAL POSSESSION OF A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT) REQUIRED REVERSAL IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE.
ARCHDIOCESE NOT LIABLE FOR ACTIONS OF NURSING HOME FOR WHICH PLAINTIFF WORKED UNDER THE SINGLE-EMPLOYER DOCTRINE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER RESIDENT EXERCISED INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE, MAKING THE RESIDENT AND HOSPITAL POTENTIALLY LIABLE (FIRST DEPT).
FALL FROM LADDER WHILE SETTING UP AUDIOVISUAL EQUIPMENT NOT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1).
PLAINTIFF WAS ENGAGED IN ALTERATION WHEN HE FELL FROM AN A FRAME LADDER AND WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION, RECOVERY NOT PRECLUDED ON THE GROUND THAT PLAINTIFF WAS THE ONLY WITNESS OR ON THE GROUND OF COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE (FIRST DEPT).
Plaintiff’s Expert’s Failure to Address Indications in Plaintiff’s Evidence that the Physical Deficits Were the Result of a Preexisitng Degenerative Condition (Not the Accident) Required the Grant of Summary Judgment to the Defendants—Plaintiff Failed to Raise a Question of Fact Re: Suffering a “Serious Injury” [Insurance Law 5102 (d)] as a Result of the Accident
DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE STAIRWELL WAS LAST INSPECTED OR CLEANED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (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

VIOLATION OF A DIRECTIVE BY THE PRISON DID NOT WARRANT ANNULMENT OF THE DISCIPLINARY... PHOTOGRAPH OF SIDEWALK DEFECT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE...