You are here: / / PLAINTIFF WAS WALKING UP AN EARTHEN RAMP WHEN HE WAS STRUCK BY AN EXCAVATOR...

PLAINTIFF WAS WALKING UP AN EARTHEN RAMP WHEN HE WAS STRUCK BY AN EXCAVATOR AND ROLLED DOWN THE RAMP; THERE WAS NO “SIGNIFICANT ELEVATION DIFFERENTIAL” SUCH THAT LABOR LAW 24O (1) WOULD APPLY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the circumstances of plaintiff’s injury did not fit the “elevation-related” element of a Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. Plaintiff was walking up an earthen ramp when he was struck by an excavator and rolled down the ramp:

Labor Law § 240(1) is inapplicable to this case because plaintiff’s injuries were not “the direct consequence of a failure to provide adequate protection against a risk from a physically significant elevation differential” … . Plaintiff was struck by an excavator; the fact that at the time he was bringing debris up an earthen ramp, or that he rolled down the ramp after being struck, does not give rise to a cause of action pursuant to Labor Law § 240(1) … . Herrera v Kent Ave. Prop. III LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 01738, First Dept 3-15-22

Practice Point: Plaintiff was walking up an earthen ramp when he was struck by an excavator and rolled down the ramp. There was no failure to provide equipment to protect against an elevation-related hazard such that Labor Law 240 (1) would apply.

 

You might also like
IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE REQUESTED DISCOVERY ABOUT THE DESIGN OF THE REAR STAIRS OF A BUS WAS BURDENSOME, REPRESENTATIVES OF DEFENDANTS ALLOWED TO BE PRESENT WHEN BUS INSPECTED BY PLAINTIFF (FIRST DEPT).
APPOINTMENT OF AN OUTSIDE ATTORNEY TO DETERMINE MERITS OF A DERIVATIVE SUIT NOT ALLOWED BY THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY OPERATING AGREEMENTS (FIRST DEPT).
THE PARTIES HAD ALREADY STIPULATED TO RESTORE THE ACTION TO THE CALENDAR; THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE GRANTED PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO VACATE THE DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR AT CONFERENCES OR OUTLINE REMAINING DISCOVERY (FIRST DEPT).
IN THIS ELEVATOR ACCIDENT CASE, ONE DEFENDANT FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE IT HAD NOT DISPLACED THE BUILDING OWNER’S DUTY TO KEEP THE PREMISES SAFE, AND ANOTHER DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT LAUNCH AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM; FAILING TO MAKE DANGEROUS CONDITION SAFER DOES NOT EQUATE WITH LAUNCHING AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM (FIRST DEPT).
THE VALIDATING PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON THE GROUND THE PETITION WAS NOT VERIFIED; THE FAILURE TO RAISE THE OBJECTION WITH DUE DILIGENCE WAIVED IT; ALTHOUGH THE LANGUAGE IN THE PETITION WAS NOT EXACTLY THAT IN CPLR 3021, THE PETITION WAS IN FACT VERIFIED (SECOND DEPT).
Doctor Did Not Have a Duty to Disclose an Email from a Non-Physician Representative of the Implant Manufacturer Which Indicated Plaintiff Might Not Be a Good Candidate for the Implants
THE OWNER OF THE OLD BRONX COURTHOUSE HAS A VALID CAUSE OF ACTION SEEKING AN EASEMENT BY NECESSITY OVER THE SIDEWALK/STREET ABUTTING THE COURTHOUSE, DESPITE THE “DEMAPPING” OF THE ABUTTING STREET AND THE CONVEYANCE OF THE “DEMAPPED” STREET TO THE DEFENDANT; THE ACTION IS NOT PRECLUDED BY THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS BECAUSE IT SEEKS TO QUIET TITLE TO THE OWNER’S LAND (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL; DEFENSE COUNSEL PROBABLY COULD HAVE WORKED OUT A PLEA TO AN OFFENSE WHICH DID NOT MANDATE DEPORTATION (FIRST 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

IN A RARE REVERSAL OF A BENCH TRIAL ON EVIDENTIARY GROUNDS, THE 1ST DEPT DETERMINED... ALTHOUGH THE MOTION TO DISMISS ON STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS GROUNDS WAS NOT TIMELY,...