You are here: / / WHERE A LADDER SHIFTS OR SLIDES FOR NO APPARENT REASON A VIOLATION OF LABOR...
, ,

WHERE A LADDER SHIFTS OR SLIDES FOR NO APPARENT REASON A VIOLATION OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) IS ESTABLISHED; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS LADDER-FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the plaintiff’s verdict in this Labor Law 240 (1) action should not have been set aside. Plaintiff used a ladder which kicked out from under him. The Second Department included a clear explanation of when a fall from a ladder is actionable under Labor Law 240 (1). If for example plaintiff merely loses his or her balance and falls off a stable ladder, the incident is not actionable. However, if the ladder shifts or slides for no apparent reason, the incident is actionable:

To establish a violation under Labor Law § 240(1), “[t]here must be evidence that the ladder was defective or inadequately secured and that the defect, or the failure to secure the ladder, was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff’s injuries” … . Where, for instance, the plaintiff falls from a ladder because the plaintiff lost his or her balance, and there is no evidence that the ladder was defective or inadequate, liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240(1) does not attach … . By contrast, where a ladder slides, shifts, tips over, or otherwise collapses for no apparent reason, the plaintiff has established a violation … . …

…[W]we disagree with the Supreme Court’s determination to set aside the jury verdict and direct judgment as a matter of law on the ground that the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of the accident. At the trial, the parties presented conflicting evidence as to whether adequate safety devices—namely, the CTS [the employer’s] ladders and/or the scissor lift—were available, whether the plaintiff knew that he was expected to use those devices, and, if so, whether he had a good reason for choosing instead to use the non-CTS ladder … . … [C]onstruing the trial evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, there was a valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could have led a rational jury to conclude that the plaintiff was neither a recalcitrant worker nor the sole proximate cause of his injuries … . Cioffi v Target Corp., 2020 NY Slip Op 06487, Second Dept 11-12-20

 

You might also like
FAILURE TO PROHIBIT T-SHIRTS MEMORIALIZING THE VICTIM AND THREE UNPRESERVED INSTANCES OF PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT WERE HARMLESS ERRORS INDIVIDUALLY, BUT THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL.
SENDING THE 90-DAY FORECLOSURE NOTICE TO THE TWO BORROWERS IN THE SAME ENVELOPE VIOLATED RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).
CRITERIA FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED UPON RES IPSA LOQUITUR EXPLAINED, NOT MET HERE.
COURT SHOULD NOT CONSIDER DEFENSES TO AN ACTION ON A MOTION TO DISMISS, WHETHER THE ACTION WOULD SURVIVE A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS NOT BEFORE THE COURT.
Trial Court Has the Discretion to Determine the Best Venue for Consolidated Actions—Here a County Other than the County Where the First Action Was Brought Was Properly Determined to Be the Most Appropriate Venue
THE ORDER ISSUED AFTER A TRAVERSE HEARING FINDING DEFENDANTS WERE NOT PROPERLY SERVED IS APPEALABLE PURSUANT TO CPLR 5501 (C); THE ORDER BRINGS UP FOR APPEAL WHETHER THE TRAVERSE HEARING WAS NECESSARY; THE MAJORITY C0NCLUDED THE HEARING WAS NOT NECESSARY; THERE WAS AN EXTENSIVE DISSENT (SECOND DEPT).
DISCOVERY OF PRIOR ASSAULTS IN THIS STUDENT ON STUDENT THIRD-PARTY ASSAULT CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN LIMITED TO PRIOR SEXUAL ASSAULTS AND PRIOR ASSAULTS BETWEEN THE TWO STUDENTS, ASSAULTS OF ANY KIND MAY HAVE PUT THE SCHOOL ON NOTICE (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS DID NOT SUBMIT THEIR CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION AND THE PRINTOUT FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE WAS NOT IN ADMISSIBLE FORM; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (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

THE STATE, AS AN OUT-OF-POSSESSION LANDLORD, FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE INDEPENDENT... THE BANK’S PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304...