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
ALTHOUGH THE COURT HAD, IN 2018, GRANTED MOTHER’S APPLICATION TO RELOCATE WITH THE CHILD TO CONNECTICUT, THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DECIDED IT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE FATHER’S PETITION TO MODIFY THE CUSTODY ORDER WITHOUT HOLDING A HEARING ABOUT THE CHILD’S CONNECTIONS TO NEW YORK (SECOND DEPT).
Six-Year Statute of Limitations for Reformation of Deed Exceeded, No Evidence the Exception to the Statute Applied
COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR AIDING AND ABETTING BREACH OF A FIDUCIARY DUTY.
PLAINTIFF BANK DID NOT STRICTLY COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) 1304 AND DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT HAD DEFAULTED IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE DECISION ILLUSTRATES THE LEVEL OF STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH RPAPL 1304 WHICH IS REQUIRED (SECOND DEPT).
ERRONEOUS HUSBAND AND WIFE DESIGNATION ON THE DEED CREATED A TENANCY IN COMMON, DEFENDANT’S INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY WAS SUBJECT TO FORECLOSURE 2ND DEPT.
BECAUSE MOTHER HAD RELINQUISHED CUSTODY OF THE CHILD TO THE MATERNAL GRANDFATHER FOR MORE THAN 24 MONTHS, THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE HELD A “BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD” HEARING BEFORE RULING ON MOTHER’S PETITION FOR SOLE CUSTODY (SECOND DEPT).
SURGEON, WHO HAD NO MEMORY OF PLAINTIFF’S PROCEDURE, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO TESTIFY ABOUT HIS USUAL CUSTOM AND PRACTICE IN PERFORMING A HERNIA REPAIR, DEFENSE JUDGMENT REVERSED IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
NEITHER THE LEVEL OF PLAYGROUND SUPERVISION NOR THE PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT CONSTITUTED THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF INFANT PLAINTIFF’S FALL, PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE EXPERTISE RE: PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND 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

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