You are here: / / THE HOIST WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS OPERATING WAS A SAFETY DEVICE WITHIN THE...

THE HOIST WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS OPERATING WAS A SAFETY DEVICE WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240(1); WHEN PLAINTIFF OPENED THE EMERGENCY HATCH ON THE HOIST FOR A REPAIRMAN, THE HATCH DOOR SLAMMED BACK DOWN ON HIS HEAD; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gonzalez, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. Plaintiff was attempting to aid in the repair of a hoist when he opened the emergency hatch and the hatch door fell back down, striking plaintiff’s head. The court ruled that the hoist was a covered safety device and plaintiff was entitled to some form of protection that would prevent the hatch door from falling back down after it was opened: In the alternative, the court noted that the hatch was a falling object which should have been secured:

Plaintiff was injured when the hatch door slammed onto his head as he stood on a ladder with his head protruding above the hatch aperture. We note that, in isolation, a hatch door is not necessarily a safety device … . Here, however, the hatch door was an essential component of a safety device — the hoist — being employed by plaintiff in an elevation-related capacity. It was foreseeable that the hoist could get stuck; indeed, a purpose of the hatch door was to serve as an emergency egress in such instances. When he was injured, plaintiff was still engaged in an elevation-related activity and attempting to safely remove himself from a height. Under these circumstances, the safety device — the hoist — was inadequate for its purpose of keeping plaintiff safe while engaged in an elevation-related activity. Plaintiff is thus entitled to partial summary judgment on the issue of liability on his claim under Labor Law § 240(1) … . Ladd v Thor 680 Madison Ave LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 07031, First Dept 12-13-22

Practice Point: Here the hoist plaintiff was operating was deemed a safety device covered by Labor Law 240(1). The door on the hoist’s emergency hatch slammed back down on plaintiffs’ head after he opened it to allow access to the hoist by a repairman. Plaintiff was entitled to some sort of protection which would prevent the open hatch door from falling back down. As an alternative, the hatch door was a falling object which should have been secured.

 

You might also like
HOMEOWNER EXEMPTION APPLIED TO THE CHURCH IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) AND 200 ACTION STEMMING FROM A FALL FROM A SCAFFOLD, FAILURE TO PLEAD THE EXEMPTION AS A DEFENSE DID NOT PRECLUDE RAISING IT IN A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, ARCHDIOCESE WAS NOT AN AGENT OF THE OWNER, NO LABOR LAW 200 LIABILITY BECAUSE PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER SUPERVISED AND CONTROLLED THE MEANS AND MANNER OF WORK (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT FOUND NOT GUILTY BY REASON OF INSANITY CAN BE SUED FOR WRONGFUL DEATH UNDER THE EPTL, BOTH FOR THE STABBING DEATH OF HIS MOTHER AND THE RELATED SUICIDE OF HIS BROTHER.
ROOF OF A PROPOSED BUILDING WOULD NOT BE ACCESSIBLE TO ALL WHO RESIDED ON THE ZONING LOT, THEREFORE THE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING RESOLUTION WOULD NOT BE MET BY THE ROOF SPACE, PERMIT ALLOWING CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ISSUED (FIRST DEPT).
OFFICE OF MEDICAID INSPECTOR GENERAL COULD NOT SEEK REIMBURSEMENT OF OVERPAYMENTS IN AN AMOUNT HIGHER THAN SPECIFICALLY INDICATED IN ITS WRITTEN NOTICE.
Procedure for Applying to be a “Defender” in America’s Cup Regatta, as Alleged in Complaint, Constitutes an “Offer” and “Acceptance”
Even Though the Insured Was Faultless, the “Additional Insureds” Endorsement Was Triggered—The Endorsement Covered Acts or Omissions by the Insured Which “Caused” the Underlying Injury Without Any Requirement that the “Cause” Entail Negligence—Here the Insured Was Not Negligent, but the Injury Was “Caused” by Insured’s Non-Negligent Acts—Therefore the Additional Insureds Were Covered Under the Policy
DEFENDANT NEVER ADMITTED THE PRIOR FELONY CONVICTION AND WAS NEVER PROPERLY NOTIFIED THE PRIOR CONVICTION WOULD BE USED AS A PREDICATE, RESENTENCING REQUIRED.
INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION WHICH REFERRED TO THE REQUIREMENT THAT A ‘DESIGNATED PERSON’ OPERATE A POWER BUGGY IS SPECIFIC ENOUGH TO SUPPORT A LABOR LAW 241 (6) CLAIM, PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A POWER BUGGY OPERATED BY SOMEONE WHO WAS NOT A ‘DESIGNATED PERSON’ (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

THE PROOF THE VICTIM SUFFERED “SERIOUS OR PROTRACTED DISFIGUREMENT”... THE DEFENDANT POLICE OFFICER’S THREATS MADE TO HIS FORMER GIRLFRIEND WERE...