You are here: / / MERELY LOSING ONE’S BALANCE AND FALLING FROM A LADDER DOES NOT GIVE...

MERELY LOSING ONE’S BALANCE AND FALLING FROM A LADDER DOES NOT GIVE RISE TO LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment in this Labor Law 240 (1), 241 (6) and 200 action. There were questions of fact about how the accident happened, whether the plaintiff was employed by a defendant, whether that defendant was employed by the owner, and whether defendant had authority or control over the site or plaintiff. In addition neither the complaint nor the bill of particulars cited a specific Industrial Code violation. The court noted than merely losing one’s balance and falling off a ladder does not give rise to liability under Labor Law 240 (1):

A defendant is not liable on a Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action unless it is an owner or “a general contractor or an agent of an owner or general contractor with the authority to supervise and control the work of . . . the injured plaintiff” … and, in order for the statute to apply, “a plaintiff must demonstrate that he [or she] was both permitted or suffered to work on a building or structure and that he [or she] was hired by someone, be it owner, contractor or . . . agent [thereof]” … . …

Defendant would not be liable under Labor Law § 240 (1) if plaintiff merely lost his balance and fell off a ladder … . … Pelonero v Sturm Roofing, LLC, 2019 NY Slip Op 06327, Fourth Dept 8-22-19

 

You might also like
Escaped Calf Furnished the Condition or Occasion for Plaintiff’s Decedent’s Presence in the Road When She Was Struck, But Was Not the Proximate Cause of Plaintiff’s Decedent’s Being in the Road
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DRIVER WITH THE RIGHT OF WAY WAS COMPARATIVELY NEGLIGENT IN COLLISION WITH DRIVER WHO FAILED TO YIELD THE RIGHT OF WAY.
Skiers Do Not Assume the Risk of Recklessness on the Part of Another Skier
PLAINTIFF FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS ON AN UNAUTHORIZED FOREIGN LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, THE COURT NEVER ACQUIRED JURISDICTION (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT COMPLAINED THAT HIS ATTORNEY HAD NOT FILED OMNIBUS MOTIONS BUT DEFENSE COUNSEL SAID HE HAD FILED THEM AND THE COURT SAID IT HAD RECEIVED THEM; IN FACT, HOWEVER NO MOTIONS HAD BEEN FILED; DEFENDANT’S COMPLAINTS ABOUT HIS ASSIGNED COUNSEL WARRANTED FURTHER INQUIRY BY THE COURT; DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE DEFENDANT INSURANCE COMPANY IS OBLIGATED TO DEFEND PLAINTIFF PEDIATRICIAN IN THE UNDERLYING ACTION BY A FORMER PATIENT ALLEGING SEXUAL ABUSE DURING A PHYSICAL EXAM (FOURTH DEPT).
PEOPLE PROPERLY ALLOWED TO IMPEACH THEIR OWN WITNESS, THE WITNESS’S TESTIMONY AFFIRMATIVELY DAMAGED THE PEOPLE’S CASE AND WAS NOT, AS ARGUED BY THE CONCURRING JUSTICES, MERELY NEUTRAL OR UNHELPFUL.
Case Remitted for Determination Whether Defendant Should Be Adjudicated a Youthful Offender/Record Insufficient to Determine Whether Court Erred In Not Disclosing to the Defendant the Written Submissions of the Victims Which Were Reviewed by the Court–Case Remitted to Make an Adequate Record for Review

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

CRITERIA FOR A MOTION TO RENEW WERE NOT MET, DISSENTERS ARGUED THE COURT HAD... DEFENDANTS’ ATTORNEYS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISQUALIFIED BECAUSE THEY HAD...