You are here: / / THE PLACEMENT OF THE LADDER WAS DEEMED THE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL...

THE PLACEMENT OF THE LADDER WAS DEEMED THE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL AND PLAINTIFF HAD PLACED THE LADDER, THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S ACTIONS WERE DEEMED THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS INJURY PRECLUDING RECOVERY IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CASE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, over a dissent, determined that plaintiff’s actions were the sole proximate cause of his fall from a ladder in this Labor Law 240 (1) case. The court determined it was the placement of the ladder which was the cause of the accident and defendant had placed the ladder:

Plaintiff alleged in his second amended complaint that he fell due to the placement of the ladder, and he admitted in his deposition testimony that he had placed the ladder himself. Plaintiff’s theory of liability is that the ladder was not an adequate safety device because it could not be placed directly below his work site. Defendants, however, submitted photographs and a video recording from their safety expert that depicted the expert placing the ladder directly under the work site and standing on it. Furthermore, plaintiff conceded in his deposition testimony that other safety devices were available at the site, and that he asked if they were available before using the ladder. Thus, we conclude that defendants established as a matter of law that the ladder was an adequate safety device and that plaintiff’s own conduct was the sole proximate cause of his injuries. Kipp v Marinus Homes, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 04859, Fourth Dept 6-29-18

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (THE PLACEMENT OF THE LADDER WAS DEEMED THE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL AND PLAINTIFF HAD PLACED THE LADDER, THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S ACTIONS WERE DEEMED THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS INJURY PRECLUDING RECOVERY IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CASE (FOURTH DEPT))/LADDERS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, THE PLACEMENT OF THE LADDER WAS DEEMED THE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL AND PLAINTIFF HAD PLACED THE LADDER, THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S ACTIONS WERE DEEMED THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS INJURY PRECLUDING RECOVERY IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CASE (FOURTH DEPT))/SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, HE PLACEMENT OF THE LADDER WAS DEEMED THE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL AND PLAINTIFF HAD PLACED THE LADDER, THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S ACTIONS WERE DEEMED THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS INJURY PRECLUDING RECOVERY IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CASE (FOURTH DEPT))

You might also like
18% REDUCTION IN INCOME SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT RECALCULATION OF CHILD SUPPORT.
THE FACT THAT DEFENDANT WAS PARKED IN A HIGH CRIME AREA NEAR AN APARTMENT COMPLEX AND THE FILED “TRESPASS AFFIDAVIT” BY AN APARTMENT PROPERTY MANAGER, REQUESTING THAT ANYONE ON THE PROPERTY WHO WAS NOT A TENANT BE ARRESTED FOR TRESPASS, DID NOT PROVIDE THE POLICE WITH A “PARTICULARIZED” REASON FOR APPROACHING THE DEFENDANT TO REQUEST INFORMATION; THE COCAINE AND HANDGUN SEIZED UPON THE DEFENDANT’S ARREST SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; THE INDICTMENT WAS DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT COMPLAINED THAT HIS ATTORNEY HAD NOT FILED OMNIBUS MOTIONS BUT DEFENSE COUNSEL SAID HE HAD FILED THEM AND THE COURT SAID IT HAD RECEIVED THEM; IN FACT, HOWEVER NO MOTIONS HAD BEEN FILED; DEFENDANT’S COMPLAINTS ABOUT HIS ASSIGNED COUNSEL WARRANTED FURTHER INQUIRY BY THE COURT; DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE SIDEWALK ON WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS RIDING HIS MOTORIZED BICYCLE WHEN HE FELL WAS NOT DESIGNED OR SUITABLE FOR RECREATIONAL USE; THEREFORE THE PROPERTY OWNER, SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY, COULD NOT RELY ON THE RECREATIONAL-USE STATUTE (GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW 9-103) TO ESCAPE LIABILITY (FOURTH DEPT).
TRAFFIC CONCERNS JUSTIFIED THE ZONING BOARD’S RESTRICTIONS ON A RESTAURANT’S HOURS OF OPERATION AND REQUIREMENT FOR VALET PARKING (FOURTH DEPT).
AS CHARGED IN THIS CASE, CRIMINAL TRESPASS THIRD IS NOT A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF BURGLARY THIRD AND THE JURY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SO INSTRUCTED (FOURTH DEPT).
FATHER’S PETITION TO MODIFY CUSTODY TO ALLOW HIS RELOCATION TO NORTH CAROLINA SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT, WHO CO-OWNED THE PROPERTY FOR A TWO-YEAR PERIOD, DEMONSTRATED HE DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE HAZARDOUS LEAD PAINT CONDITION (FOURTH 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

THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS ARE AMBIGUOUS ON THE ISSUE WHETHER COUNTY... THE PATTERN JURY INSTRUCTIONS FOR TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC...