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
STATUTE CUTTING OFF COUNTIES’ ABILITY TO SEEK MEDICAID OVERBURDEN EXPENSES IS CONSTITUTIONAL.
REDACTED STATEMENT OF CO-DEFENDANT IMPLICATED DEFENDANT IN VIOLATION OF BRUTON RULE, CONVICTION REVERSED.
THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE WENT AHEAD WITH THE DRIVER’S LICENSE REVOCATION HEARING IN THE ABSENCE OF THE OFFICERS WHO ARRESTED THE DRIVER FOR DWI; THE DRIVER’S ARGUMENT HE WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS BECAUSE HE WAS UNABLE TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE OFFICERS WAS REJECTED; THE DRIVER HAD SUBPOENAED THE OFFICERS BUT CHOSE NOT TO USE THE CPLR 2308 PROCEDURE FOR ENFORCEMENT OF THE SUBPOENAS; THE AVAILABILITY OF THE ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURE WAS DEEMED “SUFFICIENT PROCESS” (CT APP).
CASE 1: THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SIGNATURES ON A NUPTIAL AGREEMENT MUST BE CONTEMPORANEOUS, BUT NOT NECESSARILY SIMULTANEOUS, WITH THE SIGNING; HERE A SEVEN-YEAR DELAY WAS TOO LONG; CASE 2: A DEFECT IN THE ACKNOWLEDGMENTS, HERE THE LAWYERS’ FAILURE TO STATE THE SIGNERS WERE PERSONALLY KNOWN TO THEM, DID NOT INVALIDATE THE AGREEEMENT (CT APP).
THE SEARCH WARRANT DID NOT AUTHORIZE THE SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S VEHICLES; SEIZED ITEMS PROPERLY SUPPRESSED (CT APP).
Non-Resident Shareholders In an S Corporation Who Sold their Stock and Treated the Transaction as a “Deemed Asset Sale” Were Properly Assessed New York Income Tax on the New York-Source Aspects of the Sale
APPRENTICES WHO WORK OUTSIDE THE THEIR APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING CANNOT BE PAID THE LOWER APPRENTICE RATES, HERE APPRENTICE GLAZIERS DOING IRONWORK WHEN INSTALLING STOREFRONTS MUST BE PAID AT THE HIGHER JOURNEY-LEVEL RATE (CT APP).
DEFENDANT FAILED TO CHALLENGE THE PREDICATE FELONY STATEMENT IN THE LOWER COURT; THEREFORE THE ALLEGED ERROR WAS NOT PRESERVED FOR APPEAL (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...