You are here: / / PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL CARRYING A TANK WHILE WALKING ON THE MUDDY BOTTOM...

PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL CARRYING A TANK WHILE WALKING ON THE MUDDY BOTTOM OF AN EXCAVATED HOLE; THE BOTTOM OF THE HOLE WAS NOT A PASSAGEWAY (LABOR LAW 241(6)) AND THERE WAS NO ELEVATION-RELATED RISK (LABOR LAW 240(1); THOSE TWO CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) causes of action should have been granted. Plaintiff slipped and fell walking in a muddy, excavated hole. The bottom of the hole was not a passageway within the meaning of Labor Law 241(6) and there was relevant elevation-related risk:

Plaintiff is not entitled to relief under Labor Law § 241(6) for the alleged violation of Industrial Code § 23-1.7(d), since the “excavation pit” where he slipped and fell, “which at that time was no more than a big hole in the ground with an unfinished muddy bottom[,] … was not the type of flooring or passageway contemplated by” the Industrial Code … . Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, his “accident did not occur on a floor, platform, passageway or similar work area or surface within the purview of [section 23-1.7(d)], but rather on muddy ground in an open area exposed to the elements” … . There was no testimony tending to establish that he was walking along a walkway or path that “workers generally took” … . …

Summary judgment also should have been granted to defendants dismissing plaintiff’s Labor Law § 240(1) claim, because there was no elevation-related risk involved with his carrying a tank on his shoulder while he walked along the ground … . Alvarado v SC 142 W. 24 LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 05584, First Dept 10-6-22

Practice Point: Plaintiff slipped and fell while walking on the muddy bottom of an excavated hole. He was not walking on a passageway, so the Labor Law 241(6) cause of action should have been dismissed. There was no elevation-related risk, so the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action should have been dismissed.

 

You might also like
In Responding to Defendant’s Criticisms of Defense Counsel’s Actions, Defense Counsel Merely Explained His Actions and Did Not Take a Position Adverse to His Client’s—Therefore the Defendant Was Not Entitled to Withdraw His Plea on the Ground that He Was Denied Effective Assistance of Counsel
NEW THEORY COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE DEFENDANT CITY WAS AWARE OF A DEFECT IN THE SOFTBALL PLAYING FIELD, WHETHER THE DEFECT WAS NEGLIGENTLY REPAIRED AND WHETHER PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK OF INJURY, DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT). ​
WAIVER OF APPEAL INVALID; DESCRIPTION OF THE EXTENT OF THE WAIVER WAS ERRONEOUS; NO ASSURANCE DEFENDANT WAS AWARE OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RIGHTS WAIVED BY GUILTY PLEA AND APPELLATE RIGHTS.
A JUROR’S ATTEMPT TO DEVELOP A RELATIONSHIP WITH A JAILED COOPERATING PROSECUTION WITNESS DURING DELIBERATIONS EXHIBITED ACTUAL AND IMPLIED BIAS REQUIRING A NEW TRIAL; A HARMLESS ERROR ANALYSIS IS NOT APPLICABLE (FIRST DEPT).
THE TRIAL JUDGE HAS THE DISCRETION TO PERMIT REBUTTAL TESTIMONY; HERE PLAINTIFF’S TREATING PHYSICIAN WAS PROPERLY ALLOWED TO REBUT THE TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANTS’ EXPERT, EVEN THOUGH THE TREATING PHYSICIAN’S TESTIMONY COULD HAVE BEEN PRESENTED IN THE CASE-IN-CHIEF (FIRST DEPT).
FEDERAL RISK RETENTION GROUP (RRG) LAW PREEMPTS NEW YORK INSURANCE LAW’S TIMELY DISCLAIMER OF COVERAGE PROVISION, THEREFORE DEFENDANT FOREIGN RRG DID NOT NEED TO COMPLY WITH NEW YORK’S STATUTORY TIMELY DISCLAIMER REQUIREMENT (FIRST DEPT).
BAR AT ENTRANCE TO A SHOPPING-CART CORRAL WAS A TRIVIAL DEFECT.

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

THE COMPLAINT DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT BECAUSE... REFUSING TO SUBMIT TO A DWI BREATH TEST IS NOT AN OFFENSE (FOURTH DEPT).