You are here: / / PLAINTIFF WAS NOT WEARING A HARNESS AND FELL FROM A ROOF; THE FACT THAT...

PLAINTIFF WAS NOT WEARING A HARNESS AND FELL FROM A ROOF; THE FACT THAT HARNESSES MAY HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT SUFFICIENT TO DEFEAT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, over a two-justice dissent, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action should have been granted. Although plaintiff was a ground worker the on roofing job, he fell from the roof alleging that a toe board “gave out.” The fact that plaintiff was not wearing a harness, in the face of allegations harnesses were available, was not enough to defeat plaintiff’s motion. The dissenters argued the evidence that all the toe boards were in tact after the accident raised a question of fact whether that safety device failed:

… [P]laintiff met his initial burden on that part of the motion by establishing that his ” injuries were the direct consequence of a failure to provide adequate protection against a risk arising from a physically significant elevation differential’ ” … . Specifically, plaintiff submitted his deposition testimony, wherein he stated that the toe board failed, causing him to fall from the roof. He also testified that he was not provided with a harness and that there were no available harnesses nearby. …

The ” presence of [other safety devices] somewhere at the worksite’ does not [alone] satisfy defendants’ duty to provide appropriate safety devices” … . …

… “[T]he mere failure by plaintiff to follow safety instructions” does not render plaintiff the sole proximate cause of his injuries  … . The evidence presented by defendants established only that plaintiff possibly failed to follow safety instructions, not that he outright refused to “use available, safe and appropriate equipment” … . Defendants failed to demonstrate that plaintiff ” chose for no good reason not to’ ” wear a safety harness … . At most, plaintiff’s “alleged conduct would amount only to comparative fault and thus cannot bar recovery under the statute” … . Schutt v Bookhagen, 2020 NY Slip Op 04651, Fourth Dept 8-20-20

 

You might also like
COMPLAINT AGAINST THE DIOCESE OF BUFFALO ALLEGING SEXUAL ABUSE BY A PRIEST DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE (FOURTH DEPT).
Exculpatory Evidence Provided by Co-Defendant Should Not Have Been Struck from the Record When Co-Defendant Asserted His Privilege Against Self-Incrimination
EQUIVOCAL AND UNSUBSTANTIATED EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANT’S DRUG ABUSE WAS NOT ENOUGH TO JUSTIFY THE 15-POINT DRUG-ABUSE ASSESSMENT UNDER SORA (FOURTH DEPT).
Motion to Vacate Conviction Based upon Co-Defendant’s Affidavit Stating Defendant Not Involved Denied
MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICES OF CLAIM IN THIS “POLLUTION ESCAPING FROM A LANDFILL” CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD BEEN TOLLED BY THE FILING OF A FEDERAL CLASS ACTION SUIT; ALTHOUGH THERE WAS NO ADEQUATE EXCUSE, THE RESPONDENT WAS AWARE OF THE CLAIMS AND COULD NOT DEMONSTRATE PREJUDICE FROM THE DELAY (FOURTH DEPT).
​ A SUBCONTRACTOR’S DAMAGES FOR CONSTRUCTION DELAY CANNOT BE PROVEN BY COMPARING ACTUAL COSTS TO THE BID PRICE (FOURTH DEPT).
Perjury Allegations Lacked Requisite Specificity, Indictment Should Have Been Dismissed
THE COUNTY IS DISTINCT FROM THE SHERIFF, AND THE SHERIFF IS DISTINCT FROM THE SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, ONLY THE SHERIFF IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE HIRING AND TRAINING OF SHERIFF’S DEPUTIES, THEREFORE THE INJURED INMATE’S ACTION AGAINST THE COUNTY FOR NEGLIGENT HIRING, TRAINING, SUPERVISION AND RETENTION OF SHERIFF’S DEPUTIES WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (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 © 2024 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE TOWN’S APPROVAL OF CHANGES TO A WIND-TURBINE PROJECT WITHOUT A SECOND... BECAUSE PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT AFFIDAVIT IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S...