You are here: / / QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A SAFETY DEVICE WAS REQUIRED UNDER LABOR LAW 240...

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A SAFETY DEVICE WAS REQUIRED UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) IN THIS FALLING OBJECT CASE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A HARD HAT THAT COULD BE WORN WITH A WELDING SHIELD WAS REQUIRED UNDER LABOR LAW 241 (6) (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined there was a question of fact whether a safety device was necessary in this falling object case (Labor Law 240 (1)), and there was a question of fact whether plaintiff should have been supplied with a hard hat that could be worn with a welding shield (Labor Law 241 (6)). Plaintiff had used a scissors lift to raise a part up 16 feet to where it was welded just enough to hold it in place so further welding could be done (tack welds). The scissors lift was lowered, the tack welds broke and the part fell and struck plaintiff:

… [N]either the plaintiffs nor the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law with respect to the Labor Law § 240(1) cause of action. The parties’ submissions raised triable issues of fact as to whether the defendants were obligated to provide appropriate safety devices of the kind enumerated in Labor Law § 240(1) to secure the flange and whether the flange fell due to the absence or inadequacy of an enumerated safety device… . … [A]safety manager … testified … that “[d]epending on . . . what the operation is,” “[s]lings, chokers [can be] used to . . . hold [a flange] in place” until it is permanently welded to the pipe. While it is true that no safety device such as a sling was provided, the injured plaintiff testified at his deposition that two tack welds should have been sufficient to secure the flange. Significantly, the plaintiffs’ expert … opined that “the two tack welds should have been sufficient to hold the flange until the job was completed, unless the tack welds were defective.” Under these circumstances, a triable issue of fact exists as to whether “[t]his was . . . a situation where a hoisting or securing device of the kind enumerated in [Labor Law § 240(1)] would have been necessary or even expected” … . Contrary to the defendants’ contention, the tack welds do not constitute a safety device within the meaning of Labor Law § 240(1) … . Carlton v City of New York, 2018 NY Slip Op 03500, Second Dept 5-16-18

​LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A SAFETY DEVICE WAS REQUIRED UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) IN THIS FALLING OBJECT CASE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A HARD HAT THAT COULD BE WORN WITH A WELDING SHIELD WAS REQUIRED UNDER LABOR LAW 241 (6) (SECOND DEPT))/FALLING OBJECTS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A SAFETY DEVICE WAS REQUIRED UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) IN THIS FALLING OBJECT CASE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A HARD HAT THAT COULD BE WORN WITH A WELDING SHIELD WAS REQUIRED UNDER LABOR LAW 241 (6) (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
Totality of the Evidence Established Accident Was “Staged”
FAILURE TO REQUEST A JURY CHARGE ON THE INTOXICATION DEFENSE MAY HAVE BEEN A STRATEGIC DECISION WHICH THE APPELLATE COURT WILL NOT SECOND GUESS IN HINDSIGHT (SECOND DEPT).
Circumstances When Hospital May Be Liable for Actions of Non-Employee Doctor Explained
IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE AGAINST NYC, AT THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT STAGE, ONCE THE CITY DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE CONDITION WHICH CAUSED THE FALL, THE PLAINTIFF MUST COME FOWARD WITH EVIDENCE AN EXCEPTION TO THE WRITTEN-NOTICE REQUIREMENT APPLIES, EVEN IF, AS HERE, THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES NO EXCEPTION APPLIES; CASE LAW TO THE CONTRARY SHOULD NO LONGER BE FOLLOWED (SECOND DEPT).
At Will Employee Can Not Use “Fraudulent Inducement” Theory Re: Acceptance-of-Employment Offer.
THE LESSOR OF THE CAR INVOLVED IN THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT DID NOT SUBMIT THE BUSINESS RECORDS DEMONSTRATING THE ASSIGNMENT OF THE LEASE; THEREFORE DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO THE GRAVES AMENDMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Criteria for Vacation of a Stipulation of Settlement Not Met
PLAINTIFFS CAN NOT RAISE A NEW THEORY OF LIABILITY IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, SUPREME COURT REVERSED (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

TENANT’S INSURANCE POLICY NAMED THE OWNER OF THE BUILDING AS AN ADDITIONAL... GROSS NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION AND DEMAND FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN THIS OIL-CONTAMINATION-REMEDIATION...