You are here: / / BECAUSE LOOSE PLANKS ON A SCAFFOLD CONSTITUTED A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S...

BECAUSE LOOSE PLANKS ON A SCAFFOLD CONSTITUTED A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL IN THIS LABOR LAW 240(1) ACTION, PLAINTIFF’S ACTS OR OMISSIONS COULD NOT BE THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE FALL AND THE RECALCITRANT WORKER DEFENSE WAS NOT AVAILABLE (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action stemming from a fall from a scaffold. Because the scaffold was defective, plaintiff’s actions or omissions could not be the sole proximate cause of the accident. The “recalcitrant worker” defense was also rejected:

Plaintiff made a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment on his claim pursuant to Labor Law § 240 (1). His deposition testimony established that a proximate cause of his injury was the unsecured outrigger scaffold’s planks, which collapsed when he stepped on it with his boss, causing them to fall approximately 16 feet to the ground. Contrary to the court’s finding, defendants did not raise a triable issue of fact as to whether plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his injuries. Since the statutory violation of a defective scaffold was a proximate cause of the accident, plaintiff cannot be the sole proximate cause of his accident and defendants cannot avail themselves of the recalcitrant worker defense … . Francis v 3475 Third Ave. Owner Realty, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 00951, First Dept 2-21-23

Practice Point: In a Labor Law 240(1) scaffold-fall case, as long as a defect in the scaffold was a proximate cause of the fall, the plaintiff’s acts or omissions could not be the sole proximate cause and the recalcitrant worker defense won’t fly.

 

You might also like
DEFENSE COUNSEL’S UNACCEPTABLE CONDUCT IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY TRIAL WARRANTED THE TRIAL JUDGE’S ORDERING A NEW TRIAL (AFTER THE VERDICT) IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE.
Under NYC Administrative Code, Abutting Owners Have Duty to Maintain Sidewalk in a Reasonably Safe Condition
Defendant Was Not Plaintiff’s “Special Employer”
JUROR DID NOT REVEAL DURING VOIR DIRE SHE HAD APPLIED FOR A JOB IN THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE TWO DAYS BEFORE, DEFENDANT WAS DEPRIVED OF AN IMPARTIAL JURY, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).
CONTRACT FOR INTERIOR DECORATOR SERVICES AND THE PURCHASE OF FURNITURE AND ACCESSORIES WAS A SERVICE CONTRACT GOVERNED BY THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, NOT A CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF GOODS GOVERNED BY THE FOUR-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.
HEARING WAS REQUIRED TO DETERMINE WHETHER A PERMANENT STAY OF EVICTION WAS A PROPER ACCOMMODATION FOR DISABLED TENANTS PURSUANT TO THE FAIR HOUSING ACT (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT RAILROAD’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FEDERAL EMPLOYERS’ LIABILITY ACT (FELA) ACTION BY A RAILROAD EMPLOYEE WHO WAS ASSAULTED BY A PASSENGER PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).
Judicial Notice and Collateral Estoppel Re: Philippine Law and a Philippine Court Order Improperly Applied—Related Conspiracy Conviction Vacated/Emails and Newspaper Articles, Although Hearsay, Properly Admitted

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 CHALLENGES TO THE PROCEDURES FOR RELIGIOUS AND MEDICAL EXEMPTIONS FROM THE... ​ THE ALLEGATIONS DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THERE WAS A SPECIAL...