You are here: / / Question of Fact Whether Failure to Wear a Harness Precluded Recovery in...

Question of Fact Whether Failure to Wear a Harness Precluded Recovery in a Labor Law 240 (1) Action

The Second Department determined defendant had raised a question of fact whether plaintiff’s actions were the sole proximate cause of the accident (which would preclude recovery in a Labor Law 240 (1) action).  Plaintiff was injured when plywood flooring collapsed. However the defendant presented evidence plaintiff was aware he was required to wear a harness which would have prevented him from falling to the floor below:

” Labor Law § 240(1) imposes upon owners and general contractors, and their agents, a nondelegable duty to provide safety devices necessary to protect workers from risks inherent in elevated work sites'” … . To prevail on a cause of action pursuant to Labor Law § 240(1), the plaintiff must establish a violation of the statute and that the violation was a proximate cause of his injuries … . Although contributory negligence on the part of the worker is not a defense to a Labor Law § 240(1) claim …, where a plaintiff’s actions are the sole proximate cause of his injuries, liability under Labor Law § 240(1) does not attach … .

Here, although the plaintiff met his prima facie burden of establishing a violation of Labor Law § 240(1) … the defendants produced evidence that a safety harness and line were available to the plaintiff, that he was aware that he was required to anchor the line on the floor where he was working, and that the anchors, harness, and line would have prevented him from falling to the 14th floor, but that the plaintiff had consciously decided not to anchor his line on the 15th floor as instructed. The defendant’s submissions were sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff’s actions were the sole proximate cause of his accident … . Bascombe v West 44th St Hotel LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 00712, 2nd Dept 1-28-15

 

You might also like
KNEE INJURY CAUSED BY CARRYING A HEAVY STEEL BEAM DOWN STAIRS IS NOT A COVERED ACCIDENT UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY TO DWI AND THE JUDGE REVOKED HIS DRIVERS LICENSE FOR ONE YEAR; THE DMV SUBSEQUENTLY DENIED DEFENDANT’S APPLICATION TO REINSTATE HIS LICENSE; DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION ON THE GROUND HE WAS NOT AWARE HE COULD PERMANENTLY LOSE HIS LICENSE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT). ​
Defendant Did Not Demonstrate Lack of Constructive Notice in Slip and Fall Case—Slip and Fall Cause of Action Should Not Have Been Dismissed.
Handwriting Expert Not Necessary to Create Question of Fact About Authenticity of Signature
PLAINTIFF IS THE SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO THE PLAINTIFF IN A PRIOR IDENTICAL ACTION WHICH WAS DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DISCOVERY DEMANDS AND ORDERS; THE INSTANT ACTION IS PRECLUDED BY THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA (FIRST DEPT).
ABSENT AN ORDER BASED UPON AN EXCEPTION TO THE SECRECY PROVSIONS IN TAX LAW SECTION 697, THE NYS DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION AND FINANCE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO TURN OVER TAX FORMS SUBMITTED BY THE CORPORATE DEFENDANTS IN THIS LABOR LAW ACTION TO RECOVER UNPAID WAGES AND TIPS (SECOND DEPT).
The Requirements of Certificates of Conformity and Authenticity (Re: the Admissibility of Out-of-State Affidavits) Explained
THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT 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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Purchaser of Real Property, Who Is Aware of a Pending Lawsuit Involving the... Criteria for Area Zoning Variance and Court Review of Local Variance Proceedings...