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
Defendant Should Have Been Allowed to Present Evidence Relating to Victim’s Recantation at SORA Hearing
Registered Voter Could Not Intervene In Suit to Determine Constitutionality of Local Term-Limit Law
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER TENANT ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION FOR TRADE FIXTURES ON PROPERTY TO WHICH VILLAGE ACQUIRED TITLE BY EMINENT DOMAIN.
CREDIT UNION WHICH HOLDS SECURITY INTERESTS IN OVER 1400 TAXICAB MEDALLIONS DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CONTEST THE NEW YORK CITY TAXI AND LIMOUSINE COMMISSION’S (TLC’S) RULING ALLOWING UBER TO PICK UP PASSENGERS VIA SMARTPHONE (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED UNLOADING A TRUCK, HIS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE BANK FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WITH ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT MADE A DISCOVERY DEMAND FOR “LINE OF DUTY” DOCUMENTS RELEVANT TO THE DEFENSE; THE PEOPLE DID NOT ADDRESS THE DEMAND; ON APPEAL THE PEOPLE ARGUED FOR THE FIRST TIME THAT THERE WERE NO SUCH DOCUMENTS; BY FAILING TO ADDRESS THE DEMAND IN THE MOTION COURT, THE PEOPLE WERE DEEMED TO HAVE CONCEDED THE EXISTENCE OF THE DOCUMENTS; THE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WAS THEREFORE ILLUSORY; INDICTMENT DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
PETITIONER, A JOURNALIST, UNDER THE ELECTION LAW, DID NOT HAVE THE CAPACITY OR STANDING TO EXAMINE 353 BALLOTS CAST IN THE PRIMARY ELECTION FOR QUEENS COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY, WHICH WAS WON BY ONLY 55 VOTES (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 © 2025 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...