You are here: / / ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF POSITIONED THE SCAFFOLD SUCH THAT IT TIPPED WHEN A WHEEL...

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF POSITIONED THE SCAFFOLD SUCH THAT IT TIPPED WHEN A WHEEL WENT THROUGH A HOLE IN A DRAIN GRATE, HE WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined that plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action. Plaintiff had positioned the scaffold on a drain grate and the scaffold tipped when a wheel went through a hole in the grate:

“[T]he relevant and proper inquiry is whether the hazard plaintiff encountered . . . was a separate hazard wholly unrelated to the hazard which brought about [the] need [for a safety device] in the first instance” … . Here, it is undisputed that the scaffold on which plaintiff was standing tipped over because one of its wheels was placed over an open floor drain hole. The fact that the scaffold tipped and plaintiff fell to the ground “demonstrates that it was not so placed . . . as to give proper protection to [him]” … . We therefore conclude that plaintiff’s accident was caused by an elevation-related risk as contemplated in section 240 (1) … .

We reject defendant’s contentions that the sole proximate cause of the accident was plaintiff’s failure to observe the drain hole and position the scaffold in such a manner to avoid it. “[T]here can be no liability under [Labor Law § ] 240 (1) when there is no violation and the worker’s actions . . . are the sole proximate cause’ of the accident” … , and “[a] defendant is entitled to summary judgment dismissing a Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action or claim by establishing that . . . the plaintiff’s conduct was the sole proximate cause of the accident” … . Plaintiff submitted the testimony of four witnesses, including the project superintendent of the subcontractor that installed the drain and the project manager and superintendent of the subcontractor that installed the concrete floor and curing blanket. Each testified that a temporary cover should be placed over an open drain during the installation of the concrete floor, and therefore plaintiff established that a statutory violation, i.e., the placement of the scaffold over the improperly covered drain hole, was a proximate cause of the accident … . Thus, even assuming, arguendo, that plaintiff was negligent in failing to observe the drain hole and positioning the scaffold over it, we conclude that his “actions . . . render him [merely] contributorily negligent, a defense unavailable under [Labor Law § 240 (1)]”  … . “Because plaintiff established that a statutory violation was a proximate cause of [his] injury, [he] cannot be solely to blame for it’ ” … . Wolf v Ledcor Constr. Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 06263, Fourth Dept 8-22-19

 

You might also like
Plaintiff Need Not Exclude Every Other Possible Cause of an Accident to Demonstrate Proximate Cause
MIDTRIAL ORAL MOTION TO SUPPRESS, MADE AFTER THE PEOPLE BELATEDLY PROVIDED THE SEARCH WARRANT APPLICATION, REQUIRED A HEARING; COURT’S SUA SPONTE DENIAL OF THE MOTION WAS IMPROPER.
Plaintiff’s Labor Law 240 and 200 Actions Against the Town Should Have Been Dismissed—Although the Town Hired Plaintiff to Do Work on the Town’s Right of Way, the Accident Occurred on Adjacent Private Property—Labor Law 200 Action Against the Property Owners Should Not Have Been Dismissed
ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT THE PAROLE ABSCONDER FOR WHOM THE POLICE HAD AN ARREST WARRANT, THE MAJORITY DETERMINED THE PEOPLE PROVED THE POLICE REASONABLY BELIEVED DEFENDANT WAS THE PAROLE ABSCONDER WHEN THEY APPROACHED HIM, WHICH JUSTIFIED THE PURSUIT OF THE DEFENDANT; TWO DISSENTERS ARGUED THE PROOF AT THE SUPPRESSION HEARING, WHICH DID NOT INCLUDE TESTIMONY BY THE OFFICERS WHO FIRST APPROACHED DEFENDANT, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE POLICE REASONABLY BELIEVED DEFENDANT WAS THE SUBJECT OF THE ARREST WARRANT (FOURTH DEPT).
THE JUDGE DID NOT FOLLOW THE REQUIRED PROCEDURE FOR FINDING NEGLECT ON A GROUND NOT ALLEGED IN THE PETITION; TO DO SO, THE JUDGE MUST AMEND THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE PETITION TO CONFORM TO THE PROOF AND GIVE THE RESPONDENT TIME TO RESPOND TO THE AMENDED ALLEGATIONS; NEITHER WAS DONE; PETITION DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).
LOAN WHICH INCLUDED A SET AMOUNT DESIGNATED AS INTEREST WAS NOT USURIOUS, CRITERIA EXPLAINED.
Insufficient Evidence of Recklessness In Shooting Case
PROOF INSUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE INCARCERATED FATHER ABANDONED THE CHILDREN.

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

IN A TRIAL SUBJECT TO INSURANCE LAW 5102 THE TERM “SERIOUS INJURY”... SORA RISK ASSESSMENT REDUCED TO LEVEL ONE, NO PROOF AGE OF CHILDREN DEPICTED...