You are here: / / THE INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION REQUIRING THAT POWER BUGGIES BE OPERATED...

THE INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION REQUIRING THAT POWER BUGGIES BE OPERATED BY TRAINED, COMPETENT, DESIGNATED PERSONNEL DOES NOT SET FORTH A SPECIFIC STANDARD OF CONDUCT SUCH THAT IT GIVES RISE TO A NON-DELEGABLE DUTY UNDER LABOR LAW 241(6); PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN AN UNTRAINED OPERATOR LOST CONTROL OF A POWER BUGGY (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, over an extensive three-judge dissent, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the Industrial Code provision which provides “[n]o person other than a trained and competent operator designated by the employer shall operate a power buggy” was not a concrete specification sufficient to give rise to a non-delegable duty under Labor Law 241(6). Plaintiff was injured when a worker who was not designated or trained to operate a power buggy lost control. A power buggy is a small self-powered vehicle operated by one person and used to move material on construction sites:

… [W]e have repeatedly reaffirmed the rule that to state a claim under section 241 (6), plaintiff must allege that defendant violated an Industrial Code regulation “that sets forth a specific standard of conduct and [is] not simply a recitation of common-law safety principles” … . …

The regulation relied on by plaintiff provides that “[n]o person other than a trained and competent operator designated by the employer shall operate a power buggy” (12 NYCRR 23-9.9 [a]). In assessing whether that regulation is specific enough to support a Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, we examine the text without reference to the underlying facts … . With respect to 12 NYCRR 23-9.9 (a), we agree with the majority and dissent below that the “trained and competent operator” requirement “is general, as it lacks a specific requirement or standard of conduct” … . We disagree, however, with the Appellate Division majority’s conclusion that the additional direction that “trained and competent” individuals must also be “designated” somehow transforms the provision from a general standard of conduct to a “specific, positive command” … . Toussaint v Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 2022 NY Slip Op 01955, Ct App 3-22-22

Practice Point: If an Industrial Code provision does not set forth a specific standard of conduct, it does not give rise to a non-delegable duty under Labor Law 241(6). Here the Industrial Code provision which required that power buggies be operated only by “trained,” “competent,” “designated” personnel was not actionable. Plaintiff was struck by a power buggy when an untrained operator lost control.

 

You might also like
THE NOTICE OF APPEAL WAS TIMELY SERVED BUT WAS NOT TIMELY FILED WITH THE CLERK OF THE COURT; THE 3RD DEPARTMENT DISMISSED THE APPEAL; THE APPELLATE COURT HAS THE DISCRETION TO ALLOW A LATE FILING; MATTER REMITTED (CT APP).
DEFENDANT WAS A DINNER GUEST IN HIS FRIEND’S APARTMENT WHEN THE POLICE RAIDED IT; OBSERVATIONS MADE DURING THE RAID LED TO A SEARCH WARRANT FOR THE APARTMENT; DEFENDANT ALLEGED HE RECEIVED MAIL AT THE APARTMENT; THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SUPPRESS DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGE STANDING TO CONTEST THE SEARCH AND THE MOTION WAS PROPERLY DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING (CT APP).
Uncle Was Properly Found to Be a “Person Legally Responsible” for the Abused Child—He Was Therefore a Proper “Respondent” in a Child Abuse/Neglect Proceeding
Presumption of Vindictive Sentencing Did Not Apply Here Where Defendant Rejected a Plea Offer with a Sentence of Ten Years Probation and, After Trial, Was Sentenced to 10 to 20 Years in Prison
ADMISSIBILITY OF DOCUMENT ORIGINALLY CREATED IN ELECTRONIC FORM, HERE A RECORD OF TESTING OF THE SIMULATOR SOLUTION USED IN AN ALCOHOL BREATH TEST, IS DETERMINED UNDER CPLR 4518, NOT CPLR 4539.
IN THIS COLLEGE DISCIPLINARY ACTION, THE COLLEGE’S REFUSAL OF THE STUDENT’S REQUEST FOR A THREE-HOUR ADJOURNMENT TO ALLOW HIS ATTORNEY TO ATTEND WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION, NEW HEARING ORDERED (CT APP).
PETITIONER, A COUNTY CORRECTION OFFICER, WAS ENTITLED TO DISABILITY RETIREMENT BENEFITS; AN INMATE, WHO WAS UNSTEADY ON HER FEET AND MAY HAVE BEEN UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF DRUGS, FELL HEAD FIRST FROM A TRANSPORT VAN ONTO PETITIONER (CT APP).
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION DEATH BENEFIT CLAIMS CANNOT BE TRANSFERRED TO THE SPECIAL FUND ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2014, EVEN IF THE DISABILITY CLAIM FOR THE SAME INJURY HAD BEEN TRANSFERRED BEFORE THE CUT-OFF (CT APP).

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

“INTERACTIVE FANTASY SPORT” (IFS) IS NOT “GAMBLING;”... DEFENDANT, AT THE TIME OF THE PLEA, AGREED TO A SENTENCE OF 20 DAYS OF COMMUNITY...