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
DEFENDANT’S ABSENCE FROM SIDEBAR CONFERENCES DURING JURY SELECTION DID NOT REQUIRE REVERSAL (FOURTH DEPT). ​
EVEN IF PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S AFFIDAVIT ARGUABLY RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT A POTENTIALLY ACTIONABLE DELAY IN TREATMENT, THE AFFIDAVIT PRESENTED ONLY CONCLUSORY AND SPECULATIVE ASSERTIONS THAT EARLIER DETECTION AND TREATMENT WOULD HAVE HAD A DIFFERENT OUTCOME (PROXIMATE CAUSE) (FOURTH DEPT).
THE INFORMATION SOUGHT BY DEFENDANT IN THIS SUIT BY THE INSURER TO DISCLAIM COVERAGE WAS PROTECTED BY ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE AS MATERIAL PREPARED IN ANTICIPATION OF LITIGATION (FOURTH DEPT).
SENTENCING JUDGE INDICATED HE WAS BOUND BY AN AGREEMENT WITH THE PEOPLE CONCERNING DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE, HOWEVER, A SENTENCING JUDGE HAS DISCRETION IN SENTENCING, MATTER REMITTED FOR RESENTENCING (FOURTH DEPT).
THE AMENDMENTS TO THE ANTI-SLAPP STATUTES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPLIED RETROACTIVELY TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S DEFAMATION COMPLAINT (FOURTH DEPT). ​
Abuse of Discretion to Deny Defendant’s Request for New Defense Counsel—Request Was Supported by Specific Legitimate Concerns and Was Joined by Defense Counsel
THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED JUROR 15 WAS ONE OF TWO JURORS WHO GAVE A NON-VERBAL ASSURANCE HE WOULD NOT HOLD IT AGAINST THE DEFENDANT IF HE DID NOT TESTIFY; THE DISSENT ARGUED THE RECORD DOES NOT IDENTIFY JUROR 15 AS ONE OF THE TWO JURORS AND DID NOT DESCRIBE THE NATURE OF THE NON-VERBAL ASSURANCE (FOURTH DEPT).
INJURY FROM DIVING INTO THE SHALLOW END OF A POOL NOT ACTIONABLE.

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

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