You are here: / / QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER WALKING ON THE REBAR GRID WAS AN INHERENT RISK...
, ,

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER WALKING ON THE REBAR GRID WAS AN INHERENT RISK OF THE JOB AND WHETHER THE GRID WAS A DANGEROUS CONDITION PRECLUDED A DIRECTED VERDICT IN THIS LABOR LAW 200 ACTION; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined questions of fact for the jury precluded the directed verdict (CPLR 4401) for the defendants in this Labor Law 200 action. Plaintiff was working as a surveyor at a construction site. He was walking across a rebar grid when one of his legs fell through. There were questions of fact whether walking on the rebar grid was an inherent risk of his job and whether the grid was a dangerous condition. Plaintiff’s motion to set aside the directed verdict (CPLR 4404) should have been granted:

Labor Law § 200 is a codification of the common-law duty imposed upon an owner or general contractor to provide construction site workers with a safe place to work … . The duty, however, is subject to recognized exceptions … . It does not extend to hazards which are part of or inherent in the very work which the contractor is to perform, or where the contractor is engaged for the specific purpose of repairing the defect … .

Here, in directing a verdict in favor of the defendants on the issue of liability, the Supreme Court improperly decided the factual questions of whether traversing an uncovered rebar grid was an inherent risk in the injured plaintiff’s work as a surveyor, and whether the uncovered rebar grid was a dangerous condition under the circumstances presented. The record demonstrates that the plaintiffs’ evidence made out a prima facie case, and that disputed factual issues existed which should have been resolved by the jury. Since the court failed to draw “every favorable inference” in favor of the plaintiffs and because the court resolved disputed issues of fact … , the matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for a new trial on the issue of liability. Vitale v Astoria Energy II, LLC, 2020 NY Slip Op 01381, Second Dept 2-26-20

 

You might also like
Bicyclist Assumed Risk of Injury While Jumping His Bicycle Off a Dirt Mound on a Dirt Bike Trail In a Park
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF TURNED RIGHT INTO DEFENDANT DRIVER’S PATH AT AN INTERSECTION, DEFENDANT DRIVER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FREEDOM FROM FAULT AND DEFENDANT TOWN DID NOT DEMONSTRATE FOLIAGE OBSTRUCTING A STOP SIGN DID NOT CONTRIBUTE TO THE ACCIDENT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE LIMITED DEFENSE CROSS-EXAMINATION OF A WITNESS TESTIFYING ABOUT DNA TRANSFER, AND SHOULD NOT HAVE INSTRUCTED THE JURY TO ACCEPT A POLICE OFFICER’S EXPLANATION, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
THE PROCESS SERVER DID NOT EXERCISE DUE DILIGENCE IN ATTEMPTING TO SERVE DEFENDANT BEFORE RESORTING TO NAIL AND MAIL; THE PROCESS SERVER WAS AWARE OF DEFENDANT’S PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT BUT DID NOT ATTEMPT TO SERVE DEFENDANT THERE (SECOND DEPT). ​
A SMALL AMOUNT OF COCAINE IN PLAIN VIEW IN DEFENDANT DRIVER’S POCKET DID NOT PROVIDE PROBABLE CAUSE TO SEARCH THE TRUNK OF DEFENDANT’S CAR AFTER A TRAFFIC STOP (SECOND DEPT).
Service Requirements of Education Law 3813(1) Do Not Apply to Disputes Involving the Public Interest As Opposed to Private Rights/Criteria for Granting an Extension (Nunc Pro Tunc) to Effect Service Pursuant to CPLR 306-b Explained
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER BAR LIABLE FOR THIRD PARTY ASSAULT UNDER THE DRAM SHOP ACT AND NEGLIGENCE (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH FATHER FILED A PETITION FOR CUSTODY AFTER GRANDMOTHER WAS AWARDED CUSTODY, FATHER’S APPEAL WAS NOT MOOT; THE JUDGE DID NOT MAKE AN ADEQUATE INQUIRY TO ENSURE FATHER’S WAIVER OF COUNSEL WAS KNOWING, VOLUNTARY AND INTELLIGENT (SECOND 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

HOSPITAL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE TREATING EMERGENCY PHYSICIAN WAS NOT AN EMPLOYEE... DEFENDANT LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY FAILED TO FILE ITS CURRENT ADDRESS WITH...