You are here: / / QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER PEBBLE-SIZED DEBRIS WHICH FELL ON PLAINTIFF AND...

QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER PEBBLE-SIZED DEBRIS WHICH FELL ON PLAINTIFF AND ALLEGEDLY SERIOUSLY INJURED HIS EYE GAVE RISE TO LIABILITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined there were questions of fact about liability pursuant to Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6). Plaintiff was working in a shaft when pebble-sized debris fell on him, allegedly seriously injuring his eye. There were questions of fact whether the distance the debris fell was de minimus and whether the force with which the debris fell was de minimus. There was also a question of fact whether planking should have been installed above the shaft to protect against falling debris:

There are issues of fact as to whether the debris that fell on plaintiff — taking into account the elevation differential, the debris’ weight, and the amount of force it could generate …  — was “a load that required securing for the purposes of the undertaking at the time it fell” … , and whether his injury was a direct consequence of defendants’ “failure to provide adequate protection against a risk arising from a physically significant elevation differential” … . The trier of fact could find that the elevation differential between plaintiff and the level from which the debris fell was de minimis, that the debris’ weight was inconsequential, or that the debris could not have generated any meaningful amount of force, and determine that plaintiff’s “injuries were the result of [a] usual and ordinary danger[] at a construction site” … .. However, the trier of fact could determine that the elevation differential of at least one story was not de minimis, that the weight of the debris and the force it was capable of generating were significant, and that the debris should have been secured for the purpose of the undertaking. Peters v Structure Tone, Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op 02518, First Dept 4-19-22

Practice Point: There were questions of fact whether injury from falling pebble-sized debris is covered under Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6). The force generated by the falling debris could be found to be de minimus.

 

You might also like
MOTION FOR DIRECTED VERDICT MADE BEFORE PLAINTIFF CLOSED ITS CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, MOTION FOR DIRECTED VERDICT BASED UPON PLAINTIFF’S ADMISSIONS PROPERLY GRANTED, INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT VOID UNDER GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANTS-ATTORNEYS’ MOTION TO DISMISS THE LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION BASED UPON UNDENIABLE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, AS WELL AS OTHER GROUNDS, SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO TURN OVER A VIDEOTAPE OF THE EVENT AT WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED DID NOT WARRANT THE DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT DURING THE JURY TRIAL.
Supreme Court Does Not Have the Power to Dismiss a Complaint for Delay in Prosecution Absent 90-Notice (CPLR 3216)
CITY WAS IMMUNE FROM SUIT BASED UPON THE HANDLING OF A DECEASED PERSON DURING HURRICANE SANDY AND NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WAS DEMONSTRATED WITH THE CITY (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK OF INJURY CAUSED BY AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS DEFECT IN AN OUTSIDE BASKETBALL COURT.
RESPONDENT CITY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE FOIL REQUEST WOULD INTERFERE WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT OR JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS OR WOULD REVEAL A CONFIDENTIAL SOURCE; MATTER REMITTED FOR IN CAMERA REVIEW TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE FOIL REQUEST WAS PROTECTED BY THE INTER- OR INTRA- AGENCY MATERIALS EXEMPTION (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT DID NOT, UNDER THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, HAVE A DUTY TO REMOVE ICE AND SNOW FROM THE AREA OF THE SLIP AND FALL, SINCE DEFENDANT UNDERTOOK TO DO SO IT MUST DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT CREATE OR EXACERBATE THE DANGEROUS CONDITION TO BE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (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

ALTHOUGH INFORMATION PROVIDED FOUR DAYS BEFORE TRIAL PURSUANT TO A DEFENSE SUBPOENA... CLASS CERTIFICATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED ON THE GROUND THE CLASS WAS...