You are here: / / IT WAS FORESEEABLE THAT DIESEL FUMES FROM A BOOM LIFT USED BY PLAINTIFF...

IT WAS FORESEEABLE THAT DIESEL FUMES FROM A BOOM LIFT USED BY PLAINTIFF FOR INTERIOR PAINTING WOULD ACCUMULATE AND CAUSE DIZZINESS RESULTING IN PLAINTIFF’S FALL FROM THE LIFT; PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s Labor Law 240(1) cause of action should not have been dismissed. Plaintiff was spray painting the interior of a factory using a boom lift when he became dizzy and fell from the lift. Plaintiff diesel fumes from the lift accumulated above him, causing the dizziness:

… [I]t is undisputed that plaintiff fell from the lift while it was raised six to eight feet in the air. In support of his motion, plaintiff submitted evidence establishing that his injuries were causally related to the fall from the lift and that plaintiff was using a boom lift that discharged fumes into the factory. Plaintiff also submitted the affidavit of an expert who opined that defendants violated Labor Law § 240 (1) by failing to ensure that the boom lift was ” ‘so constructed, placed and operated as to give proper protection’ ” to plaintiff and by allowing plaintiff to place the boom lift in a position where diesel fumes were likely to accumulate above him and cause dizziness. We conclude that plaintiff thus met his prima facie burden on his motion by establishing that his fall was a “normal and foreseeable” consequence of the placement of the lift, which exhausted noxious fumes too close to plaintiff … .

In response, defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact whether the hazard of fumes is “of such an extraordinary nature or so attenuated from the statutory violation as to constitute a superseding cause sufficient to relieve [them] of liability” … . Defendants also failed to raise an issue of fact whether plaintiff deliberately unclipped his safety harness, and we note that the issue presents, at best, a question of comparative negligence, which is not a defense to liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) … . Wolfanger v Once Again Nut Butter Collective Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 01452, Fourh Dept 3-15-24

Practice Point: Plaintiff was using a boom lift for interior painting and alleged that diesel fumes from the lift made him dizzy, causing him to fall. That scenario was not so attenuated from the statutory violation as to constitute a superseding cause of plaintiff’s injury. Plaintiff’s Labor Law 240(1) cause of action should not have been dismissed.

 

You might also like
EVIDENCE DID NOT ESTABLISH AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT THE INSURED’S WATER-DAMAGE CLAIM WAS FRAUDULENTLY INFLATED; INSURER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISCLAIMING COVERAGE (FOURTH DEPT).
FAILURE TO HOLD A HEARING TO DETERMINE DEFENDANT’S MENTAL CONDITION AFTER TWO PSYCHIATRISTS FOUND DEFENDANT SUFFERED FROM A DANGEROUS MENTAL CONDITION WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR; ALTHOUGH THE ERROR WAS NOT PRESERVED, THE APPEAL WAS CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (FOURTH DEPT).
THE PROSECUTOR RECOMMENDED A LEVEL ONE RISK ASSESSMENT BUT THE JUDGE ASSESSED ADDITIONAL POINTS AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING RAISING THE RISK LEVEL TO TWO; BECAUSE DEFENDANT WAS NOT GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO ARGUE FOR A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE, DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO A NEW HEARING (FOURTH DEPT).
THE PROOF OF CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESION OF WEAPONS WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT (FOURTH DEPT).
DRUG-RELATED NEGLECT FINDING NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT).
THE SORA HEARING JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE GRANTED AN UPWARD DEPARTURE, INCREASING DEFENDANT’S SORA RISK LEVEL, BASED ON INFORMATION WHICH WAS NOT IN THE RISK ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT (RAI) OR RAISED BY THE PEOPLE AT THE HEARING; TO DO SO VIOLATED DEFENDANT’S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS (FOURTH DEPT).
FAILURE TO PROVIDE MEANINGFUL NOTICE OF A JURY NOTE REQUIRED REVERSAL.
THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE SUBSTANTIATING THE PURPORTED “OFF THE RECORD” STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT; THE TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WERE NEVER FILED WITH THE COUNTY CLERK; A PRETRIAL CONFERENCE WITH THE JUDGE’S CLERK DOES NOT MEET THE “OPEN COURT” REQUIREMENT FOR A STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT (FOURTH DEPT).

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 SUPPRESSION COURT APPLIED THE WRONG “DEBOUR” LEVEL TO THE INITIAL... PLAINTIFF REAL ESTATE DEVELOPER’S PRIVATE NUISANCE, PUBLIC NUISANCE AND...