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
Persistent Felony Offender Statute Does Not Require Prior Felonies to be Equivalent to New York Felonies
RESIDENT PHYSICIANS DID NOT EXERCISE INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT AND WERE NOT REQUIRED TO INTERVENE IN THE TREATMENT BY THE ATTENDING PHYSICIAN, THE RESIDENTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
FINE BELOW THE MINIMUM STATUTORY AMOUNT WAS ILLEGAL AND WAS THEREFORE VACATED BY THE APPELLATE DIVISION.
SHERIFF IS NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR EMPLOYEES OF THE SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; SHERIFF, THEREFORE, IS NOT UNITED IN INTEREST WITH THE SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT OR THE COUNTY; RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE DOES NOT APPLY; SHERIFF CANNOT BE ADDED TO THE COMPLAINT AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAS RUN.
PLAINTIFF STAFFING AGENCY WAS NOT ENTITLED, BASED UPON A BALANCING OF THE EQUITIES, TO A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ENFORCING A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT WHICH OSTENSIBLY PROHIBITED DEFENDANT FROM CONTINUING TO WORK AT THE HOSPITAL WHERE PLAINTIFF HAD PLACED HIM AFTER DEFENDANT TERMINATED HIS CONTRACT WITH PLAINTIFF (FOURTH DEPT).
Trustee Was Not Negligent In Its Management of Three Trusts; Surrogate’s Court’s Findings Reversed
GIVEN WHAT THE INFORMANT TOLD THE POLICE, THE FACT THAT DEFENDANT GRABBED AT HIS WAISTBAND WHEN THE POLICE APPROACHED HIM ON THE STREET PROVIDED REASONABLE SUSPICION THE DEFENDANT HAD A WEAPON AND THEREBY JUSTIFIED PURSUIT; THE DISSENT ARGUED THE INFORMATION FROM THE INFORMANT WAS NOT ENOUGH BY ITSELF AND THE PEOPLE DID NOT PROVE DEFDENDANT GRABBED AT HIS WAISTBAND BEFORE OR AFTER THE CHASE STARTED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE POLICE MISTAKENLY BELIEVED THE MAN IN A MOTEL ROOM (DEFENDANT) WAS A SUSPECT IN A SHOOTING; AN INFORMANT HAD TOLD THE POLICE THE MAN IN THE ROOM WAS FROM ROCHESTER, HIS NICKNAME WAS “JAY” AND HE “HAD A WARRANT;” WHEN THE MAN LEFT THE ROOM, THE POLICE STOPPED HIS TAXI; THE PEOPLE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE LEGALITY OF THE STOP (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...