You are here: / / ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF FAILED TO TIE OFF HIS LANYARD, THAT FAILURE WAS NOT...

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF FAILED TO TIE OFF HIS LANYARD, THAT FAILURE WAS NOT THE SOLE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HIS INJURY; PLAINTIFF FELL WHEN A PLANK ON THE SCAFFOLD BROKE; PLAINTIFF SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. Plaintiff was wearing a safety harness with a lanyard when a coworker asked for help in securing the scaffold to the wall. Plaintiff was not able to hook his lanyard to the scaffold because he was carrying a pipe and a clamp, the lanyard was only four feet long, and he had to walk 20 feet to the wall. A plank on the scaffold broke and plaintiff fell. Supreme Court found that were questions of fact whether plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his injury and whether he was a recalcitrant worker. Because the plank broke, plaintiff’s actions or omissions could not be the sole proximate cause of his injury:

… [T]he plaintiffs established, prima facie, that Labor Law § 240(1) was violated and that the violation was a proximate cause of the injured plaintiff’s injuries. The undisputed evidence established that the injured plaintiff was subjected to the elevation-related risk of the wooden plank which broke suddenly, causing the injured plaintiff to fall … .

In opposition to the plaintiffs’ prima facie showing, the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the injured plaintiff’s own conduct was the sole proximate cause of his injuries. Since the plaintiffs established a violation of Labor Law § 240(1) and that the violation was a proximate cause of the injured plaintiff’s fall, the injured plaintiff’s comparative negligence, if any, is not a defense to the cause of action alleging a violation of that statute … . Further, the defendants did not present evidence that the injured plaintiff was recalcitrant in the sense that he was instructed to tie and untie his lanyard to traverse the scaffold and refused to do so … . Amaro v New York City Sch. Constr. Auth., 2024 NY Slip Op 04052, Second Dept 7-31-24

Practice Point: As long as an elevation hazard is a cause of plaintiff’s injury (here a scaffold plank broke), whether an act or omission on plaintiff’s part (here the failure to hook up his lanyard) contributed to his injury is not an issue under Labor Law 240(1).

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF’S PRO SE MOTION TO DISQUALIFY DEFENDANT’S LAW FIRM PROPERLY GRANTED, AN ATTORNEY FROM THE FIRM RETAINED BY PLAINTIFF WORKED ON PLAINTIFF’S CASE AND SUBSEQUENTLY JOINED THE LAW FIRM REPRESENTING DEFENDANT (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS CONDEMNATION PROCEEDING, VALUATION OF REAL PROPERTY BASED UPON THE ASSUMPTION A SPECIAL USE PERMIT WOULD BE GRANTED WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF STATED A CLAIM FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE BASED UPON THE ATTORNEYS’ ALLEGEDLY UNREASONABLE DELAYS IN PROSECUTING AN ACTION AGAINST A CONTRACTOR, RESULTING IN THE INABILITY TO COLLECT THE JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
Prior Ties to New York Sufficient to Justify Jurisdiction of New York Courts over Custody Proceedings Brought by the Child’s Grandmother Two Months After the Child and Mother Moved to Florida
PEOPLE’S REQUEST TO WITHHOLD DISCOVERY UNTIL FIFTEEN DAYS BEFORE A HEARING OR TRIAL, FOR THE WITNESSES’ SAFETY, SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE DOCUMENTS SOUGHT IN DISCOVERY WERE PROTECTED BY THE COMMON INTEREST PRIVILEGE, AN EXCEPTION TO THE USUAL RULE RE: WAIVER OF ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE (SECOND DEPT).
CODE PROVISION DID NOT SPECIFICALLY IMPOSE TORT LIABILITY ON ABUTTING LANDOWNERS FOR BREACH OF THE DUTY TO MAINTAIN THE SIDEWALK, LANDOWNER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
PLAINTIFF WALKED INTO THE REAR OF A TRACTOR TRAILER WHICH WAS MAKING A RIGHT TURN, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND 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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE MUNICIPALITY... THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS THE HOLDER OR ASSIGNEE OF THE NOTE AT THE...