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
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED AN ACTION TO ENFORCE A MONEY JUDGMENT OBTAINED IN THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA (PRC) ON THE IMPLICIT GROUND THE DEFENDANTS WERE NOT AFFORDED DUE PROCESS IN THE PRC; THE US STATE DEPARTMENT DOCUMENTS UPON WHICH SUPREME COURT’S RULING WAS BASED DO NOT CONSTITUTE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE; THE COMPLAINT SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED DEFENDANTS HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD, WERE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL AND HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAL IN THE PRC ACTION (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF MADE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) LADDER-FALL ACTION, DEFENDANTS RAISED TRIABLE ISSUES OF FACT BY POINTING TO INCONSISTENCIES IN PLAINTIFF’S ACCOUNT (FIRST DEPT).
SPEED OF PLAINTIFF BICYCLIST RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT RE HIS COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE.
Insufficient Proof to Support “Medical Neglect” Finding
DATE OF WOMAN’S DISAPPEARANCE, NOT THE STATUTORY DEFAULT DATE FIVE YEARS LATER, WAS THE CORRECT DATE OF DEATH (FIRST DEPT).
SELF-EXECUTING CONDITIONAL DISCOVERY ORDER BECAME ABSOLUTE UPON NON-COMPLIANCE; A MOTION TO VACATE, NOT AN APPEAL, IS THE PROPER PROCEDURE TO CONTEST THE ORDER ON THE GROUND OF EXCUSABLE DEFAULT; DEFENDANTS TOOK NO ACTION TO AVOID THE DEFAULT (FIRST DEPT).
RECORDING OF DEFENDANT’S PHONE CALL MADE WHILE DETAINED PROPERLY SUBPOENAED BY THE PROSECUTION, MOTION COURT PROPERLY DENIED DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO PRECLUDE THE RECORDING (FIRST DEPT).
MOTHER WAS NOT ADVISED OF THE RIGHTS HER SON WAS GIVING UP BY ADMITTING TO THE OFFENSE IN THIS JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PROCEEDING, NEW FACT-FINDING ORDERED (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...