You are here: / / PLAINTIFF WAS NOT PROVIDED WITH A SECURED A-FRAME LADDER AND WAS NOT PROVIDED...
,

PLAINTIFF WAS NOT PROVIDED WITH A SECURED A-FRAME LADDER AND WAS NOT PROVIDED WITH ANYTHING TO SECURE THE PIPE HE WAS ATTEMPTING TO REMOVE WHEN IT FELL AND STRUCK THE LADDER; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION; THE “RECALCITRANT WORKER” AND “FAILURE TO FOLLOW SAFETY INSTRUCTIONS” ALLEGATIONS DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT (FIRST DEPT).​ ​

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action. Plaintiff was standing on an unsecured A-frame ladder when a piece of pipe he was attempting remove fell and struck the ladder. The unsecured ladder was not an adequate safety device and no safety device was provided to secure the pipe. Allegations the plaintiff was a recalcitrant worker and was the proximate cause of the accident did not raise a question of fact:​

Defendants are liable for these injuries because plaintiff was not provided any safety devices except an unsecured ladder … .

Plaintiff was also not provided any safety devices to secure the pipe while it was being removed … . The use of a safety device to secure the pipe would not have impeded the work in progress … . Even if plaintiff’s coworkers were supposed to hold the pipe as he cut it, “people are not safety devices within the meaning of Labor Law § 240(1)” … .

… While defendants contend that plaintiff’s foreman gave him safety instructions concerning how to cut the pipe and where to place the ladder so that it would not be hit by a falling pipe, plaintiff was not recalcitrant because he was not provided with an adequate safety device to secure the pipe “in the first instance” … .

There is also no issue of fact as to whether plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of the accident because, even if the length of the pipe that plaintiff cut was too long, he was not provided with an adequate safety device to secure the pipe … . Furthermore, even if plaintiff disregarded an instruction not to place the ladder where the pipe could hit it, that was not the sole proximate cause of the accident as “an instruction to avoid an unsafe practice is not a sufficient substitute for providing a worker with a safety device to allow him to complete his work safely” … . Jara-Salazar v 250 Park, L.L.C., 2024 NY Slip Op 05407, First Dept 10-31-24

Practice Point: If an accident is the result of the failure to provide plaintiff with adequate safety equipment, the allegation plaintiff failed to follow safety instructions will not raise a question of fact.​

Practice Point: Here the failure to provide safety devices to secure a pipe which was being removed from the ceiling when it fell was a ground for defendants’ liability.

 

You might also like
NO APPEAL LIES FROM AN ORDER ISSUED ON DEFAULT, A MOTION TO VACATE IS THE ONLY REMEDY; NO APPEAL LIES FROM AN ORDER ISSUED ON CONSENT (FIRST DEPT).
EQUITABLE ACTION SEEKING RESCISSION BASED UPON FRAUD NEED NOT ALLEGE PECUNIARY LOSS.
PROPERTY OWNERS WERE AWARE THE SIDEWALK IN FRONT OF THE RESTAURANT HAD BEEN HOSED DOWN BY RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES ON A COLD DAY; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS ICY-SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE (FIRST DEPT).
RARE CASE WHERE DEFENDANT SUBMITTED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO DEMONSTRATE SNOW REMOVAL EFFORTS DID NOT CREATE OR EXACERBATE A DANGEROUS CONDITION; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
SORA COURT MAY HAVE OVERASSESSED THE RISK IN A STATUTORY RAPE CASE, MATTER REMITTED FOR PROPER APPLICATION OF THE CRITERIA ANNOUNCED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS IN PEOPLE V GILLOTTI (FIRST DEPT).
CONTINUOUS REPRESENTATION DOCTRINE APPLIED TO AN ENGINEERING FIRM HIRED TO OVERSEE AN HVAC INSTALLATION PROJECT; THE THREE-YEAR NEGLIGENCE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS TOLLED BY THE CONTINUOUS REPRESENTATION DOCTRINE AND THE ACTION WAS TIMELY (FIRST DEPT).
UPON REMITTITUR FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS, DEFENDANT’S IDENTITY THEFT CONVICTION AFFIRMED, DEFENDANT ATTEMPTED TO PURCHASE ITEMS USING A CREDIT CARD AND DRIVER’S LICENSE WITH A FICTITIOUS NAME (FIRST DEPT)
DEFENDANT WAS NOT SHOWN TO BE NEGLIGENT OR TO HAVE EXERCISED SUPERVISION AND CONTROL OVER THE INJURY-PRODUCING WORK; SCHEDULING AND COORDINATING WORK DOES NOT CONSTITUTE SUPERVISON AND CONTROL; THE COMMON-LAW INDEMNIFICATION AND CONTRIBUTION CLAIMS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST 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

PLAINTIFF FELL FROM A SCAFFOLD WITH NO GUARDRAILS; DEFENDANTS’ AFFIDAVIT... PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED BY A FALLING TREE LIMB; THE CITY AND COUNTY, AS PART OWNERS...