You are here: / / LABOR LAW 240(1) DOES NOT COVER INJURY TO A MECHANIC REPAIRING A VEHICLE,...
,

LABOR LAW 240(1) DOES NOT COVER INJURY TO A MECHANIC REPAIRING A VEHICLE, EVEN IF THE EVENT IS “GRAVITY-RELATED;” HERE AN ELEVATED TRAILER FELL ON PLAINTIFF (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Singas, determined that injury to a mechanic repairing a vehicle is not covered by Labor Law 240(1). Plaintiff was repairing a trailer which had been lifted up five feet by a backhoe. The backhoe rolled backward and the trailer fell on the plaintiff, causing serious injuries:

Labor Law § 240 (1) applies to workers “employed” in the “erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning or pointing of a building or structure” … . The statute’s “central concern is the dangers that beset workers in the construction industry” (id. at 525). If an employee is engaged in an activity covered by section 240 (1), “contractors and owners” must “furnish or erect” enumerated safety devices “to give proper protection” to the employee. “Whether a plaintiff is entitled to recovery under [section] 240 (1) requires a determination of whether the injury sustained is the type of elevation-related hazard to which the statute applies” … . To make this determination, a court must examine the “type of work the plaintiff was performing at the time of injury” … . * * *

Employing a holistic view of the statute, we conclude that the activity in which plaintiff was engaged, ordinary vehicle repair, is not an activity covered by Labor Law § 240 (1). Such work is analogous to that of a factory worker engaged in the normal manufacturing process. Plaintiff is a mechanic who was fixing the brakes on a trailer, a “[v]ehicle” as that term is defined in Vehicle and Traffic Law § 159. Expanding the statute’s scope to cover a mechanic engaged in ordinary vehicle repair would “extend the statute . . . far beyond the purposes it was designed to serve” … . Stoneham v Joseph Barsuk, Inc., 2023 NY Slip Op 06467, CtApp 12-19-23

Practice Point: Labor Law 240(1) does not cover injuries to a mechanic who is repairing a vehicle. Here the elevated trailer plaintiff was repairing fell on him.

 

You might also like
DENIALS OF PETITIONER’S REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS AND WITNESSES WERE PRESERVED FOR REVIEW, NO NEED FOR PETITIONER TO SPECIFICALLY OBJECT.
BASED ON THE UNAMBIGUOUS LANGUAGE OF THE POLICY, THE TERM “OCCURRENCE” REFERRED TO EACH TIME A MEMBER OF THE CLASS WAS INJURED, NOT TO A SINGLE INJURY TO THE CLASS AS A WHOLE; THEREFORE THE DEDUCTIBLE WAS TRIGGERED SEPARATELY FOR EACH INJURED CLASS MEMBER.
THE COURT OF APPEALS, OVERRULING PRECEDENT, DETERMINED THE AUTOPSY REPORTS WERE “TESTIMONIAL” IN NATURE AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED THROUGH AN EXPERT WHO DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE AUTOPSIES; ADMISSION OF THE REPORTS AND THE EXPERT’S TESTIMONY VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO CONFRONT THE WITNESSES AGAINST HIM (CT APP).
THE LANDLORD’S APPLICATION TO AMEND PRIOR ANNUAL REGISTRATION STATEMENTS TO PERMANENTLY EXEMPT AN APARTMENT FROM RENT STABILIZATION WAS PROPERLY DENIED BY THE DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL (DHCR); ONLY MINISTERIAL AMENDMENTS TO PRIOR ANNUAL REGISTRATION STATEMENTS, SUCH AS CLERICAL ERRORS AND MISSPELLINGS, ARE ALLOWED (CT APP). ​
THE HOUSING STABILITY AND TENANT PROTECTION ACT OF 2019 (HSTPA) DOES NOT APPLY RETROACTIVELY TO RENT OVERCHARGE ACTIONS UNDER THE RENT STABILIZATION LAW (RSL) COMMENCED BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEALS RULING IN ROBERTS (CT APP).
THE SOLE REMEDY PROVISION IN THE REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES AGREEMENT IN THIS RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES CASE WAS VALID AND ENFORCEABLE; THE GROSS NEGLIGENCE PUBLIC POLICY RULE DOES NOT APPLY WHERE THE SOLE REMEDY PROVISION IMPOSES REASONABLE LIMITATIONS ON LIABILITY OR REMEDIES (CT APP).
THE INTERSATE COMPACT ON THE PLACEMENT OF CHILDREN (ICPC) APPLIES ONLY TO PLACEMENT IN FOSTER CARE OR PLACEMENT RELATED TO ADOPTION; THEREFORE THE ICPC DID NOT APPLY HERE WHERE FATHER, A NORTH CAROLINA RESIDENT, SOUGHT CUSTODY OF THE CHILD; NORTH CAROLINA, APPLYING THE ICPC, DID NOT APPROVE PLACEMENT WITH FATHER; THE APPELLATE DIVISION’S DENIAL OF FATHER’S CUSTODY PETITION ON THAT GROUND WAS REVERSED (CT APP).
EXCLUDING EVIDENCE WHICH CONTRADICTED AN IMPORTANT PROSECUTION-WITNESS’S ACCOUNT OF HIS ACTIONS RIGHT UP UNTIL THE TIME OF THE SHOOTING, AND THREE 911 CALLS WHICH QUALIFIED AS PRESENT SENSE IMPRESSIONS, DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF HIS RIGHT TO PUT ON A DEFENSE (CT APP).

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 FOIL REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS PREPARED BY COUNSEL FOR THE BOARD OF PAROLE WAS... A CANINE SNIFF FOR DRUGS IS A SEARCH; ALTHOUGH THE APPELLATE DIVISION HAD ALSO...