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
ALTHOUGH THE DRIVER’S MOTHER HAD PURCHASED AND INSURED THE CAR AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT, THE SELLER’S REGISTRATION PLATES WERE STILL ON THE CAR, THE SELLER WAS ESTOPPED FROM DENYING OWNERSHIP (FOURTH DEPT).
Punishment Was “Shocking to One’s Sense of Fairness”
THE MAJORITY AFFIRMED THE CONVICTION BUT A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR ALLOWING PREJUDICIAL EVIDENCE TO COME IN WITHOUT A STRATEGIC JUSTIFICATION (FOURTH DEPT).
Violation of Zoning Ordinance Precludes Property Tax Exemption
A CRUCIAL DOCUMENT SUBMITTED TO PROVE THE AMOUNT OF A MEDICAID LIEN SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED AS A BUSINESS RECORD; THE DOCUMENT WAS NOT CERTIFIED BY AN EMPLOYEE FAMILIAR WITH THE BUSINESS PRACTICES OF THE ENTITY WHICH PROVIDED THE DATA COLLECTED IN THE DOCUMENT (FOURTH DEPT).
“Falling Objects” Protection Afforded by Labor Law 240 (1) Explained
THE PEOPLE ARE NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE THEIR WITNESSES READY FOR TRIAL IN ORDER FOR A STATEMENT OF READINESS TO BE VALID; THE MOTION TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT ON SPEEDY-TRIAL GROUNDS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE STATEMENTS OF READINESS WERE NOT ILLUSORY; THERE WAS A DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT).
SUPREME COURT PROPERLY REFUSED TO DISMISS A COMPLAINT CONCERNING CONTROL OF CERTAIN CAYUGA NATION PROPERTY ON SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION GROUNDS, TWO JUSTICE DISSENT (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

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