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
MOTHER’S CAUSES OF ACTION FOR EMOTIONAL DISTRESS WOULD NOT BE AVAILABLE IF HER BABY WAS BORN ALIVE; THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE BABY WAS BORN ALIVE OR STILLBORN; THEREFORE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF FELL WHEN HER FOOT BECAME ENTANGLED IN CORDS OR TUBES CONNECTED TO MEDICAL EQUIPMENT IN A HOSPITAL ROOM; DEFENDANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE CORDS OR TUBES WERE OPEN AND OBVIOUS AND NOT INHERENTLY DANGEROUS; DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
RIDING IN A PICKUP TRUCK IS NOT AN ELEVATION-RELATED RISK, FALLING OFF THE TAILGATE OF A MOVING TRUCK NOT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1), RIDING ON THE TAILGATE WAS THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT.
ACCIDENT DIAGRAM IN POLICE REPORT WAS NOT BASED ON OFFICER’S FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE; REPORT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE; NEW TRIAL ORDERED.
DEFENDANT CLEANING SERVICE CONTRACTOR SUBMITTED EVIDENCE WHICH CREATED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER, PURSUANT TO THE ESPINAL CRITERIA, IT LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Question of Fact Raised About Whether Contract for the Installation of Marble Staircase Landings Gave Rise to Tort Liability to Third Party (Plaintiff) Stemming from the Collapse of a Landing
THE LABOR LAW LIABILITY EXEMPTION FOR OWNERS OF ONE AND TWO FAMILY HOMES DOES NOT APPLY WHERE THE WORK HAS A COMMERCIAL PURPOSE, I.E., RENOVATION OF THE PROPERTY FOR SALE OR RENTAL; HERE THE DEFENDANTS DID NOT ELIMINATE QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE WORK WAS FOR A COMMERCIAL PURPOSE (SECOND DEPT). ​
ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE COMPANY PROPERLY GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS (ALLEGEDLY) MISALIGNED ELEVATOR SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE MAINTENANCE COMPANY DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION AND PLAINTIFFS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR APPLIED (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...