You are here: / / PLAINTIFF, WHO WAS WORKING AT GROUND LEVEL, WAS STRUCK ON THE HEAD BY A...

PLAINTIFF, WHO WAS WORKING AT GROUND LEVEL, WAS STRUCK ON THE HEAD BY A TIRE RIM WHICH WAS BLOWN OFF THE ROOF IN HEAVY WINDS, THE TIRE RIM REQUIRED SECURING AND NO SAFETY DEVICE WAS EMPLOYED, PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff (Wellington) was entitled to summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action. Plaintiff, who was working at ground level, was struck on his head by a 25 to 30 pound tire rim that blew off the roof of the building in strong winds. No one was working on the roof due to the wind. The roofing contractor was defendant Tower. With respect to the applicability of Labor Law 240 (1), the court explained:

The statutory protections arise when “the falling of an object is related to a significant risk inherent in the relative elevation at which materials or loads must be positioned or secured” … . The object must have been “material being hoisted or a load that required securing for the purposes of the undertaking,” and it must have fallen “because of the absence or inadequacy of a safety device of the kind enumerated in the statute”… . Here, a significant elevation-related risk was inherent in the placement of the tire rim on a roof several stories above an area where others were working, particularly in windy conditions. The tire rim, as part of a safety system mandated by federal regulations, was an integral part of Tower’s undertaking in renovating the roof, and, because of the hazard created by the elevation differential, it plainly “required securing for the purposes of [that] undertaking” … .

As for the absence or inadequacy of a safety device, several witnesses testified that tire rims were commonly used in the industry as supports for safety warning systems like the one at issue here, and that cinder blocks and sandbags were sometimes used to secure them by adding additional weight. Tower’s president testified, however, that it was not Tower’s practice to use such securing devices because a tire rim’s weight was enough to keep it from falling. In effect, Tower relied upon the tire rim’s heaviness as a substitute for a safety device — a method that “clearly failed in its core objective of preventing the [tire rim] from falling because [it], in fact, fell, injuring [Wellington]” … . Wellington v Christa Constr. LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 03199, Third Dept 5-3-18

​LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (FALLING OBJECTS, PLAINTIFF, WHO WAS WORKING AT GROUND LEVEL, WAS STRUCK ON THE HEAD BY A TIRE RIM WHICH WAS BLOWN OFF THE ROOF IN HEAVY WINDS, THE TIRE RIM REQUIRED SECURING AND NO SAFETY DEVICE WAS EMPLOYED, PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION (THIRD DEPT))/FALLING OBJECTS (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, PLAINTIFF, WHO WAS WORKING AT GROUND LEVEL, WAS STRUCK ON THE HEAD BY A TIRE RIM WHICH WAS BLOWN OFF THE ROOF IN HEAVY WINDS, THE TIRE RIM REQUIRED SECURING AND NO SAFETY DEVICE WAS EMPLOYED, PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION (THIRD DEPT))

You might also like
PLAINTIFF HIGH SCHOOL BASEBALL PLAYER ASSUMED THE RISK OF BEING STRUCK WITH A BALL DURING A PRACTICE DRILL WHERE MULTIPLE BALLS WERE IN PLAY; TWO DISSENTING MEMORANDA (THIRD DEPT).
CLAIMANT PROPERLY DENIED UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS DURING FIRST SEVEN WEEKS OF A STRIKE, ALTERNATIVE WORK SITE AVAILABLE (THIRD DEPT).
Construction Manager Did Not Have the Contractual Authority to Control the Manner In Which Work Was Done and In Fact Did Not Control the Manner In Which Work Was Done—Labor Law 240 (1) and 200 Causes of Action Properly Dismissed
Claimant’s Non-Work-Related Felony Deemed to Breach Express or Implied Duty Owed to Employer
REVERSAL IS NOT REQUIRED WHEN A JURY NOTE WHICH WAS NOT ADDRESSED BY THE COURT HAD NO DIRECT RELEVANCE TO THE CHARGED OFFENSE (THIRD DEPT).
CLAIMANT, IN HIS APPLICATION FOR BOARD REVIEW, DID NOT SPECIFY WHEN THE OBJECTION SUBJECT TO BOARD REVIEW WAS MADE; THEREFORE THE BOARD PROPERLY DENIED REVIEW OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW JUDGE’S DECISION (THIRD DEPT).
CLAIMANT-NURSE’S MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEMS WERE NOT COMPENSABLE AS THEY WERE NOT CAUSED BY GREATER THAN NORMAL STRESSORS (THIRD DEPT). ​
CONFLICTING EVIDENCE ABOUT THE ABILITY TO SEE ICE ON THE PARKING LOT RAISED A TRIABLE QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS HAD CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION WHICH ALLEGEDLY CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL (THIRD 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

FEDERAL RISK RETENTION GROUP (RRG) LAW PREEMPTS NEW YORK INSURANCE LAW’S... INMATE-PETITIONER’S INITIAL PRO SE ATTEMPT TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM...