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
Introduction of “Prompt Outcry” Evidence in a Rape Trial, After the People, Pre-Trial, Had Informed Defense Counsel and the Court There Would Be No Evidence of a “Prompt Outcry,” Required Reversal
NEW YORK HAS LONG-ARM JURISDICTION OVER THE MICHIGAN MANUFACTURER OF UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES (UAV’S) PURCHASED BY SUNY STONY BROOK FOR USE IN MADAGASCAR IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION (CT APP). ​
UNDER THE FACTS, THE PRO SE DEFENDANT WAS NOT DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO PUT ON A DEFENSE BY THE PEOPLE’S ACCESS TO HIS RECORDED JAIL PHONE CALLS; DEFENDANT EFFECTIVELY WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL (CT APP).
Multi-million Dollar Legal Malpractice Action Stemming from Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities Dismissed
APPEALS AS OF RIGHT MAY NOT BE DISMISSED BASED UPON THE DEPORTATION OF APPELLANT; PERMISSIVE APPEALS, HOWEVER, ARE SUBJECT TO DISCRETIONARY DISMISSAL ON THAT GROUND.
FAILURE TO RESPOND TO JURY NOTES AFTER COUNSEL HAD BEEN MADE AWARE OF THE CONTENTS OF THE NOTES AND THE JUDGE’S PROPOSED RESPONSES WAS NOT A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR, PRESERVATION REQUIRED.
RECORDS ASSOCIATED WITH AN ARREST AND PROSECUTION AND PRISON MEDICAL RECORDS ALLEGEDLY RELATING TO AN ATTACK BY CORRECTION OFFICERS WERE NOT SUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE THE RESPONDENT CITY HAD ACTUAL TIMELY NOTICE OF THE ASSOCIATED CLAIMS; LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICES OF CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (CT APP).
THE SO-CALLED TWO-HOUR RULE, REQUIRING THE REQUEST FOR A DWI BREATH TEST BE MADE AND THE REFUSAL WARNINGS BE GIVEN WITHIN TWO HOURS OF ARREST, DOES NOT APPLY TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE LICENSE REVOCATION HEARINGS HELD BY THE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES (DMV); THEREFORE THE FACT THAT THE PETITIONER WAS ASKED TO TAKE THE BREATH TEST AND WAS GIVEN THE REFUSAL WARNINGS THREE HOURS AFTER ARREST DID NOT PRECLUDE THE DMV FROM CONSIDERING PETITIONER’S TEST REFUSAL (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 © 2025 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...