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
Supreme Court Properly Imputed Income to Husband (Higher than that Reported by Husband) in Awarding Pendente Lite Maintenance and Child Support
JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE JURY INSTRUCTION WAS NOT SUFFICIENT; NEW TRIAL MUST BE BEFORE A DIFFERENT JUDGE BECAUSE OF THE JUDGE’S EXCESSIVE INVOLVEMENT (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE FREIGHT ELEVATOR WAS IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL RULES, REGULATIONS AND CODES, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE ABSENCE OF A GATE CREATED A DANGEROUS CONDITION OF WHICH THE BUILDING OWNERS WERE AWARE, THE OWNERS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
CITY ACQUIRED TITLE BY ADVERSE POSSESSION, DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S HAVING CONTINUOUSLY PAID THE PROPERTY TAXES (SECOND DEPT).
CITIBANK NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT UNDER AN ACCOUNT STATED THEORY TO COLLECT A CREDIT CARD DEBT.
PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS TAKEN TO THE DEFENDANT HOSPITAL’S EMERGENCY ROOM AND WAS OPERATED ON BY AN INDEPENDENT SURGEON; PLAINTIFF DEMONSTRATED THE EMERGENCY ROOM EXCEPTION APPLIED AND THE HOSPITAL WAS VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR THE SURGEON’S ALLEGED MALPRACTICE (SECOND DEPT).
District Attorney’s Office Did Not Adequately Justify Its Denial of Inmate’s Requests for Color Photographs and Unredacted Documents Re: 18-Year-Old Murder Prosecution
Agency’s Failure to Follow Its Own Regulations Renders Determination Arbitrary and Capricious

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

Criteria for Collateral Estoppel Explained (Criteria Not Met Here) Cause of Action Based Upon a Legal Theory Which Could Have Been Raised in a...