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
Hearsay Can Not Be Sole Basis for Denial of Summary Judgment Motion
PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER HE WAS INDUCED TO SIGN RELEASES BY FRAUD, DURESS AND/OR MUTUAL MISTAKE; PLAINTIFF WAS APPROACHED BY HIS EMPLOYER’S LAWYER AND ALLEGEDLY BELIEVED HE WOULD LOSE HIS JOB IF HE DIDN’T SIGN (FIRST DEPT).
​ THE ATTEMPT TO HOLD DEFENDANT PLUMBING COMPANY LIABLE FOR THE LEAK WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL RELIED ON PURE SPECULATION; THE DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR FAILS BECAUSE DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE EXCLUSIVE CONTROL OVER THE BUILDING’S PLUMBING (FIRST DEPT).
CONTINUOUS REPRESENTATION DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY TO TWO DISTINCT AND SEPARATE ACTIONS, LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION TIME-BARRED (FIRST DEPT).
PLANKS AND CRIBBING COVERING AN OPENING WERE SAFETY DEVICES WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1), FAILURE TO SECURE THE CRIBBING WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT (FIRST DEPT).
COMPENSATION FOR A GUARDIAN UNDER THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW IS NOT CALCULATED ACCORDING TO THE FORMULA IN THE SURROGATE’S COURT PROCEDURE ACT, GUARDIAN ENTITLED ONLY TO REASONABLE COMPENSATION.
IN THIS FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDING, THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE PLACED TIME AND TESTIMONY RESTRICTIONS ON THE HEARING; ORDER REVERSED AND NEW HEARING ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).
BECAUSE THE RESPONDENT CREATED AMBIGUITY ABOUT WHETHER IT WAS STILL CONSIDERING PETITIONER’S FOIL REQUEST AFTER EXPIRATION OF THE 10-DAY CONSTRUCTIVE-DENIAL PERIOD, THE FOUR-MONTH PERIOD FOR COMMENCING AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING DID NOT START ON THE CONSTRUCTIVE-DENIAL DATE; THE ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING WAS TIMELY COMMENCED (FIRST 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

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...