You are here: / / PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED ATTEMPTING TO HOLD BACK A HAND TRUCK WITH A 500 POUND...

PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED ATTEMPTING TO HOLD BACK A HAND TRUCK WITH A 500 POUND LOAD AS HE WAS DESCENDING STAIRS; IT WAS POSSIBLE TO LOWER THE LOAD USING RIGGING IN AN ELEVATOR SHAFTWAY BUT PLAINTIFF WAS DIRECTED TO USE THE STAIRS; PLAINTIFF WAS PROPERLY AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined plaintiff was properly awarded summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action. Plaintiff was injured trying to keep a hand truck from descending stairs too fast with a 500 pound load. The load could have been lowered with rigging equipment in an elevator shaftway but was directed to use the stairs:

Plaintiff was not provided with any hoisting equipment to use on the staircase and defendants had previously refused Dunwell’s [plaintiff’s employer’s] requests to bring equipment through the building’s lobby and down the shaftway of the lobby elevator, which was already outfitted with rigging equipment. Instead, defendants instructed Dunwell to bring their materials through the courtyard behind the building and down an exterior staircase to the basement. Plaintiff testified that he was holding the hand truck by the handles at the top, while his coworkers held it from the bottom to control its descent, and as the hand truck was going down the first step, one of the coworkers, a helper, “kind of let off the pressure” on his side of the hand truck, causing the hand truck to go down the first step “very fast,” which “jerked” plaintiff and caused him to slip on some dirt, gravel, or debris on the step. Plaintiff testified further that at that point he attempted to hold back the weight of the steel bedplate and stop the load’s descent. Plaintiff “yelled out a little bit” and the three workers rested for approximately 30 seconds, before continuing the descent down the stairs. All three workers rested at the bottom of the stairs before moving the bedplate into the building. During this break, plaintiff told his coworkers “I pulled my shoulder out and my back is killing me.” Agli v 21 E. 90 Apts. Corp., 2021 NY Slip Op 03540, First Dept 6-8-21

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A FALLING BEAM WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN SECURED; PLAINTIFF WAS NOT OTHERWISE PROTECTED FROM FALLING OBJECTS; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT). ​
PLAINTIFFS’ ATTORNEY FAILED TO SUBMIT MEDICAL RECORDS REQUESTED BY THE JUDGE FOR MORE THAN A YEAR AFTER THE INQUEST; THE APPLICATION FOR DAMAGES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED ON THAT GROUND; PLAINTIFFS SHOULD NOT BE PENALIZED FOR THE NEGLECT OF THEIR ATTORNEY (SECOND DEPT). ​
No Proof of Service of Notice of Entry of Default Judgment; One Year Deadline Never Triggered​
DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO MEET 60-DAY DEADLINE IMPOSED BY A LOCAL COURT RULE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT DOES NOT APPLY TO FAILURE TO DIAGNOSE (FIRST DEPT).
ARBITRABLE CLAIMS WHICH ARE INEXTRICABLY TIED TO CLAIMS ALREADY IN COURT SHOULD BE LITIGATED IN COURT.
THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE INQUIRED FURTHER WHEN A PROSPECTIVE JUROR SAID TRAVEL PLANS PROHIBITED HER FROM SERVING BEYOND THE PROJECTED LAST DAY OF THE TRIAL, CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).
PLANKS AND CRIBBING COVERING AN OPENING WERE SAFETY DEVICES WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1), FAILURE TO SECURE THE CRIBBING WAS A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT (FIRST DEPT).
No Common Law Negligence Cause of Action to Recover for Injuries Caused by Dog, Even Where Dog Owner May Be Negligent

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

PLAINTIFF, WHO WAS ASSAULTED IN DEFENDANT LANDLORD’S BUILDING, DID NOT... THE PEOPLE PRESENTED INSUFFICIENT PROOF ON RISK FACTORS 2 AND 4, REQUIRING A...