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
THE WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED UNDER THE AUTOMOBILE EXCEPTION OR AS A LIMITED SAFETY SEARCH, MOTION TO SUPPRESS PROPERLY GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE PROPERTY-INSURANCE EXCLUSION FOR “DETERIORATION” APPLIED TO THE BULGING WALL CAUSED BY THE DETERIORATION OF BRICKS, PRECLUDING COVERAGE (FOURTH DEPT).
Guilty Plea Waives All Nonjurisdictional Pre-Trial and Trial Defects.
ALTHOUGH NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP EXISTED BETWEEN BROKER AND PLAINTIFF, CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON PLAINTIFF’S SPECIFIC REQUEST FOR FLOOD INSURANCE (WHICH WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE POLICY) SURVIVED SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
RATHER THAN ADDRESS WHETHER THE REGULATION REQUIRING HOSPITAL PERSONNEL TO BE VACCINATED AGAINST COVID WAS VALID AND ENFORCEABLE, THE FOURTH DEPARTMENT REFUSED TO APPLY THE EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE TO CONSIDER THE MERITS OF THE APPEAL, FLATLY STATING THE PANDEMIC IS OVER AND IS UNLIKELY TO OCCUR AGAIN (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT SAID HE WOULD NOT GO TO THE POLICE STATION WITHOUT A PARENT OR AN ATTORNEY, THAT CONSTITUTED AN ASSERTION OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL, SUBSEQUENT STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT).
Motion Papers Sufficient to Warrant a Probable Cause Hearing, Criteria Described
JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, DRAWN AN ADVERSE INFERENCE AGAINST FATHER BASED UPON FATHER’S FAILURE TO CALL HIS GIRLFRIEND AS A WITNESS WITHOUT FIRST INFORMING FATHER AND GIVING FATHER A CHANCE TO EXPLAIN, ERROR DEEMED HARMLESS HOWEVER (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

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...