You are here: / / PLAINTIFF FELL FROM A LADDER WHEN A TIRE STORED ON THE ROOF OF A SHED FELL...

PLAINTIFF FELL FROM A LADDER WHEN A TIRE STORED ON THE ROOF OF A SHED FELL AND STRUCK THE LADDER, THE TIRE WAS NOT BEING HOISTED AND DID NOT NEED TO BE SECURED FOR THE PURPOSES OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK, THE ACCIDENT THEREFORE WAS NOT COVERED UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the criteria for a “falling object” case under Labor Law 240(1) had not been met. Tires were stored on the roof of a shed. As plaintiff was climbing a ladder to the roof of the shed, a tire struck the ladder and plaintiff fell. Because the tire was not being hoisted and did not need to be secured, Labor Law 240(1) did not apply to the facts:

“To prevail on a cause of action pursuant to section 240(1) [of the Labor Law] in a falling object case, the injured worker must demonstrate the existence of a hazard contemplated under that statute and the failure to use, or the inadequacy of, a safety device of the kind enumerated therein” … . “This requires a showing that at the time the object fell, it either was being hoisted or secured, or required securing for the purposes of the undertaking” … . “Labor Law § 240(1) does not apply in situations in which a hoisting or securing device of the type enumerated in the statute would not be necessary or expected'”… .

Here, the evidence adduced at trial, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, demonstrated that the tires were not materials that were being hoisted or secured for the purposes of the undertaking, nor was it expected, under the circumstances of this case, that the tires would require securing for the purposes of the undertaking at the time one or more tires fell … . Therefore, “the special protection’ of Labor Law § 240(1) was not implicated” … . Ruiz v Ford, 2018 NY Slip Op 02820, Second Dept 4-25-18

​LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (PLAINTIFF FELL FROM A LADDER WHEN A TIRE STORED ON THE ROOF OF A SHED FELL AND STRUCK THE LADDER, THE TIRE WAS NOT BEING HOISTED AND DID NOT NEED TO BE SECURED FOR THE PURPOSES OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK, THE ACCIDENT THEREFORE WAS NOT COVERED UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) (SECOND DEPT))/FALLING OBJECTS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, PLAINTIFF FELL FROM A LADDER WHEN A TIRE STORED ON THE ROOF OF A SHED FELL AND STRUCK THE LADDER, THE TIRE WAS NOT BEING HOISTED AND DID NOT NEED TO BE SECURED FOR THE PURPOSES OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK, THE ACCIDENT THEREFORE WAS NOT COVERED UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
IT WAS ALLEGED A TEACHER SEXUALLY ABUSED PLAINTIFF STUDENT ONCE OR TWICE A WEEK FOR THREE YEARS ON SCHOOL GROUNDS, SOMETIMES FOLLOWED BY ABUSE OFF SCHOOL GROUNDS; THE NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
SCHOOL EMPLOYEE’S NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION IS NOT GOVERNED BY THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT (CBA), NO NEED TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES; DENIAL OF MEDICAL LEAVE DID NOT HAVE RES JUDICATA OR COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL EFFECT (SECOND DEPT).
HERE PLAINTIFF HAD THE RIGHT-OF-WAY ENTERING AN INTERSECTION AND DEFENDANT FAILED TO YIELD; PLAINTIFFS WERE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY AND DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANTS’ COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (SECOND DEPT).
A FOIL REQUEST FOR A ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS (ZBA) MEMO SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED BECAUSE PETITIONER HAD UNSUCCESSFULLY SOUGHT TO ANNUL A ZBA RULING; MATTER REMITTED FOR REVIEW OF THE MEMO TO DETERMINE WHETHER IT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE AS INTER-AGENCY OR INTRA-AGENCY MATERIAL (SECOND DEPT).
NEGLECT STEMMING FROM MOTHER’S MENTAL ILLNESS NOT PROVEN, FAMILY COURT REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
Mitigating Factor (12 Years Since Release) Did Not Warrant Downward Departure in SORA Proceeding
THE JUDGE’S LAW CLERK, A FORMER ASS’T DA, DISCUSSED DEFENDANT’S SENTENCING WITH THE JUDGE; THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE RECUSED HIMSELF FROM THE SENTENCING, SENTENCE VACATED (SECOND DEPT).
Failure to Follow Statutory Procedure Re: Notes Sent Out By Jury Is a “Mode of Proceedings” Error Requiring Reversal

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

INSUFFICIENT PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE 90 DAY NOTICE MAILING REQUIREMENTS... INCIDENT REPORTS DID NOT PROVIDE THE CITY WITH NOTICE OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS...