You are here: / / QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT...
,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WHEN HE CLIMBED THE LADDER FROM WHICH HE FELL, THUS PLACING THE INCIDENT OUTSIDE THE PROTECTION OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined that there was a question of fact whether plaintiff was acting within the scope of his employment when he climbed a ladder to troubleshoot a cable installation problem:

Plaintiff commenced this action to recover for personal injuries he allegedly sustained when he fell from a utility pole while attempting to troubleshoot a cable installation activation that did not work. However, his supervisor submitted an affidavit asserting, inter alia, that plaintiff’s sole job functions were as a manager, providing administrative services and training, assessing materials and equipment needed for a job, and occasionally following up with an activation from ground level only, but that in no event were his duties to entail climbing any poles.

Supreme Court correctly determined that issues of fact exist as to whether the aerial work plaintiff contends he was performing when he fell was outside the scope of his employment and thus outside the protection of Labor Law § 240(1) … . McCue v Cablevision Sys. Corp., 2018 NY Slip Op 02902, First Dept 4-26-18

​LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WHEN HE CLIMBED THE LADDER FROM WHICH HE FELL, THUS PLACING THE INCIDENT OUTSIDE THE PROTECTION OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) (FIRST DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WHEN HE CLIMBED THE LADDER FROM WHICH HE FELL, THUS PLACING THE INCIDENT OUTSIDE THE PROTECTION OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) (FIRST DEPT))

You might also like
Voluntary Participation in Fight Precludes Suit Alleging Inadequate Building Security
NONMONETARY SETTLEMENT OF A SHAREHOLDERS’ CLASS ACTION SUIT APPROVED, NEW ANALYTICAL CRITERIA ANNOUNCED.
INSTALLING WINDOW SHADES IS NOT ‘ALTERING’ WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND WAS NOT PART OF THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR’S RESPONSIBILITIES (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENSE COUNSEL, DURING VOIR DIRE, RELIED ON THE PEOPLE’S REPRESENTATION THAT THE COMPLAINANT WOULD NOT TESTIFY, BEFORE OPENING STATEMENTS DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INFORMED THE COMPLAINANT WOULD TESTIFY, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).
THE “NO ACTION” PROVISION IN THE CONTRACT PRECLUDED PLAINTIFFS FROM BRINGING A JUDICIAL BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION; THE AVAILABLE CONTRACTUAL REMEDIES WERE DEEMED EXCLUSIVE (FIRST DEPT). ​
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A PERMANENTLY AFFIXED LADDER VIBRATED CAUSING PLAINTIFF TO FALL; PLAINTIFF WAS ENGAGED IN REPAIR NOT ROUTINE MAINTENANCE; NO SHOWING PLAINTIFF WAS AWARE HE SHOULD WEAR A HARNESS AND FAILURE TO DO SO WOULD CONSTITUTE COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE WHICH IS NOT A BAR TO RECOVERY (FIRST DEPT).
Hearsay in Medical Records Should Have Been Redacted/Not Relevant to Diagnosis and Not Clearly Attributable to Plaintiff as an Admission
PLAINTIFF ALLEGED THE FAILURE OF DEFENDANT ATTORNEYS TO PROPERLY PREPARE THE EYEWITNESS TO THE ACCIDENT RESULTED IN THE WITNESS’S INCONSISTENT TESTIMONY AT TRIAL AND A DEFENSE VERDICT; ARGUING THAT THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN A PLAINTIFF’S VERDICT ABSENT THE ATTORNEYS’ MALPRACTICE IS TOO SPECULATIVE TO SUPPORT A LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION (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

THE MANNER IN WHICH A PRISON BODY CAVITY SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED DEEMED UNREASONABLE... TESTIMONY THERE HAD BEEN NO COMPLAINTS ABOUT A HOLE ON THE DEFENDANT CEMETERY...