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
DEFENDANT’S CHALLENGES TO THE HARVESTING FOR USE AT TRIAL OF RECORDINGS OF PHONE CALLS MADE BY INMATES DURING PRE-TRIAL INCARCERATION REJECTED; THE PRACTICE HOWEVER WAS NOT CONDONED AND THE PREJUDICE TO DEFENDANTS WHO CANNOT MAKE BAIL WAS EXPRESSLY NOTED.
NEW YORK’S PERSISTENT FELONY OFFENDER SENTENCING SCHEME IS CONSTITUTIONAL, IT DOES NOT INVOLVE PROOF OF A FACT OTHER THAN A PRIOR FELONY CONVICTION.
Petitioner, Who Was Required to Work in the “Work Experience Program [WEP]” to Receive Public Assistance, Was an “Employee” Entitled to Minimum Wage Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
BASED UPON THE LANGUAGE OF THE INSURANCE POLICIES AT ISSUE, THE EXCESS INSURER WAS NOT LIABLE FOR THE PREJUDGMENT INTEREST ON THE PERSONAL INJURY JUDGMENT AFTER THE PRIMARY POLICY WAS VOIDED (CT APP).
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE’S MARKING AN ADMINISTRATION OF CHILDREN’S SERVICES REPORT AS ‘INDICATED’ FOR MALTREATMENT OF PETITIONER’S CHILD HAD A RATIONAL BASIS AND SHOULD STAND, APPELLATE DIVISION REVERSED (CT APP).
Questions Concerning the Presumption that a Will Not Found After a Thorough Search Had Been Revoked (by Destruction) Should Have Been Resolved Before the Will Was Admitted to Probate—Matter Remitted to Surrogate’s Court
Less Stringent “Area Variance” Criteria, Rather than the More Stringent “Use Variance” Criteria, Properly Applied to a Restaurant’s Request for a Variance Re: Off-Street Parking Requirements
THE STATUTORY TIMELY-DISCLAIMER REQUIREMENT OF INSURANCE LAW 3420(d)(2) DOES NOT APPLY TO OUT-OF-STATE RISK RETENTION GROUPS (RRG’S), DEFENDANT RRG, WHICH DID NOT ISSUE A TIMELY DISCLAIMER OF COVERAGE IN THE UNDERLYING PERSONAL INJURY ACTION, IS NOT BARRED FROM PRESENTING DEFENSES TO COVERAGE (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...