You are here: / / THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF WAS USING HIS OWN LADDER WHEN IT FELL DID NOT PRECLUDE...

THE FACT THAT PLAINTIFF WAS USING HIS OWN LADDER WHEN IT FELL DID NOT PRECLUDE RECOVERY UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1); AS THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF MEASURES TAKEN TO PREVENT THE LADDER FROM FALLING, PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment in this Labor Law 240(1) ladder-fall case. Plaintiff brought his own ladder to the job and the feet of the ladder apparently slipped away from the wall. Plaintiff alleged the ladder should have been secured in some way (i.e., a person should have been holding the ladder):

… [T]here is no dispute that plaintiff used his own equipment, which does not preclude liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) … . The testimony as to the ladder’s functionality at the time of the accident does not aid defendants, as there is no dispute “that no one was holding the ladder from which plaintiff fell when it suddenly shifted or wobbled, and that no safety devices were provided to prevent the ladder from slipping or plaintiff from falling if it did” … . Nor is there some indication that plaintiff was recalcitrant in deliberately refusing available safety devices … . Barnhardt v Richard G. Rosetti, LLC, 2023 NY Slip Op 02574, Third Dept 5-11-23

Practice Point: Plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240(1) cause of action in this ladder-fall case. The fact that plaintiff was using his own ladder did not preclude recovery.

 

You might also like
THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE FINDING OF NEGLECT ON MOTHER’S PART (THIRD DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).
WHEN THE MERITS OF A MOTION TO REARGUE ARE ADDRESSED THE DENIAL IS APPEALABLE; THE PERSONAL SERVICE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE NOTICE OF SALE PURSUANT TO THE LIEN LAW WERE NOT MET, THEREFORE THE 10-DAY PERIOD FOR BRINGING A SPECIAL PROCEEDING TO CONTEST THE VALIDITY OF THE LIEN DID NOT START TO RUN (THIRD DEPT).
Massage Therapist Was Employee
ACTION BY YARD WASTE BUSINESS WAS A STRATEGIC LAWSUIT AGAINST PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (SLAPP), DEFAMATION AND RELATED CLAIMS AGAINST NEIGHBOR BASED ON STATEMENTS MADE BY THE NEIGHBOR ABOUT THE OPERATION OF THE YARD WASTE BUSINESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).
Court Erred In Failing to Hold a Restitution Hearing—No Support In Record for Amount Imposed
DEFENDANTS DID NOT AFFIRMATIVELY DEMONSTRATE THEIR PRODUCTS WERE NOT THE SOURCE OF ASBESTOS EXPOSURE, POINTING TO GAPS IN PLAINTIFFS’ PROOF IS NOT ENOUGH, DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 3RD DEPT.
PESTICIDE COMPANY WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING BEFORE IMPLEMENTATION OF A CLEAN-UP PLAN BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION.

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 LEGISLATION ALLOWING PUBLIC FUNDS TO BE USED TO CONSTRUCT A $1.4 BILLION... DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED...