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
Marriage Between a Half-Uncle and Half-Niece Is Not Prohibited by Domestic Relations Law 5 (3)
ALLOWING EVIDENCE OF UNCHARGED CRIMES AND BAD ACTS UNDER MOLINEUX, AND ALLOWING DEFENDANT HARVEY WEINSTEIN TO BE CROSS-EXAMINED ABOUT THOSE UNCHARGED ALLEGATIONS UNDER SANDOVAL, DEPRIVED HIM OF A FAIR TRIAL; CRIMINAL SEXUAL ACT AND RAPE CONVICTIONS REVERSED AND NEW TRIAL ORDERED (CT APP).
BECAUSE OF A LACK OF PLACEMENT OPTIONS, A CHILD REMOVED FROM SCHOOL WHEN SHE BECAME UNMANAGEABLE REMAINED IN A HOSPITAL EMERGENCY ROOM FOR WEEKS; THE PETITION SOUGHT HER RELEASE FROM THE EMERGENCY ROOM; THE APPEAL WAS DEEMED MOOT BECAUSE THE NYS OFFICE OF PEOPLE WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES HAD FOUND SUITABLE PLACEMENT AND INSTITUTED A PROGRAM TO ENSURE THE PROBLEM WOULD NOT RECUR (CT APP).
Beating of Child Combined with Two-Hour Delay in Seeking Help Constituted Depraved Indifference
NEW YORK CITY CHARTER PROVISION REQUIRES ONLY ONE ATTEMPT AT PERSONAL SERVICE OF NOTICES OF BUILDING CODE VIOLATIONS BEFORE TURNING TO THE NAIL AND MAIL ALTERNATIVE (CT APP).
JURY NOTE FOUND IN THE COURT FILE BY APPELLATE COUNSEL WAS, AFTER A RECONSTRUCTION HEARING, DETERMINED TO HAVE BEEN A DRAFT WHICH WAS DISCARDED BY THE JURY, AS OPPOSED TO A NOTE OF WHICH COUNSEL SHOULD HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED, THEREFORE THE PROHIBITION OF RECONSTRUCTION HEARINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE HANDLING OF JURY NOTES DID NOT APPLY (CT APP).
THE FOIL PERSONAL PRIVACY EXEMPTION DOES NOT PROVIDE A BLANKET EXEMPTION FOR CIVILIAN COMPLAINTS AGAINST POLICE OFFICERS, INCLUDING UNSUBSTANTIATED COMPLAINTS; WHETHER SUCH A DOCUMENT SHOULD BE REDACTED OR WITHHELD MUST BE DETERMINED DOCUMENT-BY-DOCUMENT (CT APP).
HERE DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE WAS REDUCED PURSUANT TO THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SURVIVORS JUSTICE ACT (DVSJA) AFTER SHE HAD BEEN IMPRISONED LONGER THAN THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED BY THE DVSJA; THE EXCESS PRISON TIME SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CREDITED TO ELIMINATE THE PERIOD OF POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION (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...