You are here: / / INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION WHICH REFERRED TO THE REQUIREMENT THAT A ‘DESIGNATED...

INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION WHICH REFERRED TO THE REQUIREMENT THAT A ‘DESIGNATED PERSON’ OPERATE A POWER BUGGY IS SPECIFIC ENOUGH TO SUPPORT A LABOR LAW 241 (6) CLAIM, PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A POWER BUGGY OPERATED BY SOMEONE WHO WAS NOT A ‘DESIGNATED PERSON’ (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Singh, over a two-justice dissent, determined that an Industrial Code provision requiring that a power buggy be operated by a “designated person” was specific enough to support a Labor Law 241 (6) claim. Plaintiff was injured when he was struck in the back by a power buggy operated by someone who was horsing around and fell off the buggy before it struck plaintiff. The First Department searched the record and awarded summary judgment to the plaintiff:

We agree with the dissent that the regulation’s requirement that a “trained and competent operator . . . shall” operate the power buggy is general, as it lacks a specific requirement or standard of conduct. However, since the term “designated person” has been held to be specific, 12 NYCRR 23-9.9(a) is a proper predicate for a claim under Labor Law § 241(6).

The dissent’s concern that we are exposing a defendant to liability for injury caused by a power buggy operated by an unauthorized person is misplaced … . We note that the Court of Appeals has reiterated that, while the duty imposed by Labor Law § 241(6) may be “onerous[,] . . . it is one the Legislature quite reasonably deemed necessary by reason of the exceptional dangers inherent in connection with constructing or demolishing buildings or doing any excavating in connection therewith'” … , and that “[t]he Industrial Code should be sensibly interpreted and applied to effectuate its purpose of protecting construction laborers against hazards in the workplace” … .

Moreover, liability under Labor Law § 241(6) “is dependent on the application of a specific Industrial Code provision and a finding that the violation of the provision was a result of negligence” … .

The fact that the operating engineer was “horse playing” prior to operating the power buggy does not absolve defendant from liability under Labor Law § 241(6) … . ​Toussaint v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 2019 NY Slip Op 04302, First Dept 5-30-19

 

You might also like
JUDGE PROPERLY SET ASIDE THE VERDICT AWARDING $0 FOR FUTURE PAIN AND SUFFERING IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO OBJECT TO THE VERDICT AS INCONSISTENT (FIRST DEPT).
HERE THE PLAINTIFFS-TENANTS WERE ENTITLED TO A YELLOWSTONE INJUNCTION WHICH TOLLS THE CURE PERIOD UNTIL A COURT DETERMINES WHETHER THE TENANT HAS ACTUALLY DEFAULTED; PURPOSES OF AND CRITERIA FOR A YELLOWSTONE INJUNCTION CLEARLY EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT). ​
“Pertinent to Litigation” Privilege for Statements Made by an Attorney Does Not Apply If the Relevant Litigation Is a “Sham”—Here Sufficient “Sham Litigation” Allegations Were Made—Slander Per Se Cause of Action Should Not Have Been Dismissed
English Judgment Enforceable by New York Courts Without Demonstration of Subject Matter Jurisdiction or Ownership of Property in New York
ALTHOUGH THE BOOM TRUCK WAS 700 FEET FROM WHERE IT WAS LOADED WHEN THE BOOM STRUCK AN OVERHEAD SIGN, THE TRUCK WAS AT THE WORK SITE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE LABOR LAW, ALTHOUGH THE INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION ADDRESSED THE POSITION OF THE BOOM BUT NOT THE NATURE OF THE ACCIDENT, THE PROVISION WAS BROADLY WORDED AND RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ON THE LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION 1ST DEPT.
INDEMNITOR WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF A TAX AUDIT UNTIL A TAX ASSESSMENT WAS IMPOSED, UNDER THE CONTRACT, PREJUDICE SUFFICIENT TO RELIEVE THE INDEMNITOR OF THE CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION TO INDEMNIFY NEED NOT ENTAIL TANGIBLE ECONOMIC LOSS, IT WAS ENOUGH THE INDEMNITOR WAS DENIED THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONTROL THE DEFENSE OF THE AUDIT.
AN INQUIRY INTO DEFENDANT’S MENTAL HEALTH WAS REQUIRED BEFORE ALLOWING DEFENDANT TO REPRESENT HIMSELF; THE RESULTS OF CPL ARTICLE 730 EXAMS, OF WHICH THE PRESIDING JUDGE WAS NOT MADE AWARE AT THE TIME OF THE REQUEST TO PROCEED PRO SE, INDICATING DEFENDANT MAY BE DELUSIONAL, CONSTITUTED ‘RED FLAGS’ WARRANTING THE INQUIRY (FIRST DEPT). ​
Demand for Jury Trial Properly Struck/Rescission Was Core of Action and Counterclaim

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

PETITIONER DID NOT LIVE IN THE TOWN WHERE THE CHALLENGED CANDIDATE WAS RUNNING... PERSONS WHO SIGNED A DESIGNATING PETITION WHICH WAS DEEMED NULL AND VOID COULD...