You are here: / / PLAINTIFF, WHO IS FIVE FOOT SEVEN, WAS INJURED WHEN A SIX FOOT HIGH STACK...

PLAINTIFF, WHO IS FIVE FOOT SEVEN, WAS INJURED WHEN A SIX FOOT HIGH STACK OF SCAFFOLDS PARTIALLY FELL ON HIM, THE HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL WAS DEEMED DE MINIMUS, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this Labor Law 240 (1) action was properly granted. Plaintiff, who is five feet seven inches tall, was injured when a six-foot high stack of scaffold partially fell over. The difference between the plaintiff’s height and the height of the stacked scaffolds was deemed de minimus:

In a previous appeal from an order deciding the parties’ motions for summary judgment, we determined that the scaffolding frames, estimated to be about six feet tall, established an elevation differential, but that questions of fact remained as to plaintiff’s actual height, “the number of scaffolds stacked in the pile that collapsed, the weight of each scaffold and the manner in which the scaffold(s) struck plaintiff” … . These details are significant because “[i]n determining whether an elevation differential is physically significant or de minimus, we must consider not only the height differential itself, but also ‘the weight of the [falling] object and the amount of force it was capable of generating, even over the course of a relatively short descent'” … . …

To support their motion, defendants submitted the affidavit of Ernest Gailor, an engineer. Gailor opined that “the [five]-inch differential between the top of . . . plaintiff’s head and the maximum height of [the] frames . . . did not significantly contribute to the ‘total’ force at impact of the offending frame as it struck plaintiff.” * * *

In our view, defendants’ submissions established a prima facie basis to conclude that the elevation differential here was de minimus and that plaintiff’s claim falls outside the scope of Labor Law § 240 (1). Wright v Ellsworth Partners, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 04803, Third Dept 6-13-19

 

You might also like
Refusal to Allow Carrier to Call Witnesses Warranted Reversal
CLAIMANT, A PER DIEM SUBSTITUTE TEACHER, WAS GIVEN REASONABLE ASSURANCE OF CONTINUED EMPLOYMENT AND THEREFORE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS BETWEEN THE ACADEMIC TERMS (THIRD DEPT).
AFTER AN INITIAL WAIVER OF HIS RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT, DEFENDANT BECAME INCREASINGLY UNWILLING TO ANSWER QUESTIONS AND FINALLY SAID “MAYBE” HE SHOULD GET A LAWYER BECAUSE HE DIDN’T WANT TO INCRIMINATE HIMSELF, FROM THAT POINT ON THE INTERROGATION VIDEO SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (THIRD DEPT).
Failure to Comply with a Time-Limit for a Buy-Out in a Shareholders’ Agreement Was Trumped by the Overall Purpose of the Agreement—Shareholder Properly Compelled to Sell His Shares
PLAINTIFF WAS STANDING ON THE SECOND RUNG FROM THE TOP, STRADDLING THE LADDER, WHEN IT WOBBLED AND FELL; THE NEED TO STAND NEAR THE TOP OF THE LADDER TO DO THE WORK DEMONSTRATES THE LADDER WAS NOT AN ADEQUATE SAFETY DEVICE ENTITLING PLAINTIFF TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION; THERE WAS A TWO JUSTICE DISSENT WHICH ARGUED THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S MISUSE OF THE LADDER WAS THE SOLE PROXIIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT (THIRD DEPT).
CLAIMANT PURCHASED OFFICE FURNITURE AFTER HE WAS HIRED TO WORK FROM HOME AND WAS INJURED CARRYING THE FURNITURE TO HIS HOME OFFICE; THE WORKER’S COMPENSATION BOARD SHOULD NOT HAVE ANALYZED THE CASE UNDER A RIGID NEW STANDARD FOR EMPLOYEES WORKING FROM HOME; MATTER REMITTED FOR APPLICATION OF THE LONG-ESTABLISHED STANDARD (THIRD DEPT). ​
Absence of Complete Financial Disclosure Did Not Preclude Family Court from Making “Change-of-Circumstances” Determination
The County Was Negligent Per Se Due to Its Violation of the Provision of the Vehicle and Traffic Law Requiring Loads in Open Trucks be Covered—Plaintiff Was Struck by Debris Which Came Off an Uncovered Load—The Governmental Immunity Conferred by the Executive Law During a Response to an Emergency (the Truck Was Carrying Debris from the Clean-Up After Hurricane Irene) Did Not Extend to this Situation (Purpose and Scope of the Government’s “Emergency” Immunity Under the Executive Law Explained)

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

THREE PRIOR INSURERS OF THE PROPERTY CONTAMINATED BY AN OIL SPILL, SUED BY THE... ATV’S ARE NOT MOTOR VEHICLES WITHIN THE MEANING OF PENAL LAW 125.13 (1)...