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))

/by
You might also like
LEASE INCLUDED AN EXPRESS PROVISION ALLOWING TENANT TO WITHHOLD RENT IF THE PREMISES IS DAMAGED AND NOT REPAIRED, THEREFORE WITHHOLDING RENT WAS NOT AN ELECTION OF REMEDIES AND THE TENANT COULD WITHHOLD RENT AND SUE FOR DAMAGES (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE JURY WAS PROPERLY INSTRUCTED TO ACQUIT ON ALL COUNTS IF THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE APPLIED, THE VERDICT SHEET DID NOT MENTION THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE WHICH MAY HAVE GIVEN THE JURY THE IMPRESSION THE JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY FOR EACH COUNT, CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
Dismissal of a Criminal Charge In the Interest of Justice Can Constitute a “Termination In Favor of the Accused” In the Context of a Malicious Prosecution Cause of Action
PORTION OF DETECTIVE’S INTERNAL AFFAIRS FILE DISCOVERABLE; DEPOSITION OF ADDITIONAL EMERGENCY MEDICAL TECHNICIANS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED.
DEFENDANTS DID NOT SUBMIT EVIDENCE SHOWING WHEN THE SIDEWALK WAS LAST INSPECTED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE FLORIDA DEFENDANTS ADVERTISED THROUGH A NATIONWIDE WEBSITE; THE NEW YORK PLAINTIFFS SOLICITED THE CONTRACT WITH DEFENDANTS; PLAINTIFFS DID NOT MAKE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE OF EITHER GENERAL OR SPECIFIC (LONG-ARM) JURISDICTION OVER DEFENDANTS (SECOND DEPT).
BANK’S PROOF OF THE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 INSUFFICIENT, BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
SUPPRESSION COURT’S FAILURE TO EXPLAIN THE BASIS FOR DENYING THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS PRECLUDED DETERMINATION OF THE APPEAL; MATTER REMITTED (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

Copyright © 2022 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
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...