You are here: / / Plaintiff, Who Fell Through an Open Manhole, Entitled to Summary Judgment...

Plaintiff, Who Fell Through an Open Manhole, Entitled to Summary Judgment on Labor Law 240 (1) Cause of Action—Failure to Set Up Guard Rails Was a Proximate Cause–Liability Imposed Regardless of Plaintiff’s Own Negligence and Regardless of Whether the Owner, Contractor or Agent Supervised or Controlled the Work

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, over a two-judge dissent, determined plaintiff, who fell through an uncovered manhole, was entitled to partial summary judgment on his Labor Law 240 (1) claim based on testimony the manhole should have been surrounded by guard rails. The court also determined there was a question of fact whether the safety consultant, IMS, was liable as a “statutory agent” under Labor Law 240 (1). The court explained that the obligation to provide safety devices is a nondelegable duty which imposes liability regardless of whether owner, contractor or agent supervises or controls the work. Where 240 (1) is violated, the plaintiff's negligence is not a defense, unless plaintiff's negligence is the sole proximate cause of the injury:

Section 240 (1) provides, in relevant part:

“All contractors and owners and their agents . . . in the erection, demolition, repairing, altering, painting, cleaning or pointing of a building or structure shall furnish or erect, or cause to be furnished or erected for the performance of such labor [certain enumerated] [*4]and other devices which shall be so constructed, placed and operated as to give proper protection to a person so employed.”

The statute imposes upon owners, contractors and their agents a nondelegable duty that renders them liable regardless of whether they supervise or control the work … . “Where an accident is caused by a violation of the statute, the plaintiff's own negligence will not furnish a defense”; however, “where a plaintiff's own actions are the sole proximate cause of the accident, there can be no liability” … . Thus, in order to recover under section 240 (1), the plaintiff must establish that the statute was violated and that such violation was a proximate cause of his injury … . Barreto v Metropolitan Tr. Auth., 2015 NY Slip Op 03875, CtApp 5-7-15

 

You might also like
THE MISDEMEANOR COMPLAINT DID NOT ALLEGE SUFFICIENT FACTS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE SYNTHETIC CANNABINOID DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED WITH POSSESSING WAS ONE OF THE SYNTHETIC CANNABINOIDS DESIGNATED AS CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES BY THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW (CT APP).
EXPERT TESTIMONY ON FALSE CONFESSION AND CROSS-RACIAL IDENDITIFICATION/MISIDENTIFICATION PROPERLY PRECLUDED; THREE-JUDGE DISSENT (CT APP).
DEFENDANT HAD A RIGHT TO BE PRESENT DURING THE SANDOVAL/MOLINEUX DISCUSSIONS OF THE ADMISSIBILITY OF HIS PRIOR CONVICTIONS; THE FACT THAT THE JUDGE ANNOUNCED HIS SANDOVAL/MOLINEUX RULINGS IN THE DEFENDANT’S PRESENCE WAS NOT ENOUGH; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (CT APP).
Whether Plaintiff “Justifiably Relied” on Alleged Misrepresentations Is Not Generally a Question Which Can Be Resolved in a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Cause of Action
CAYMAN ISLANDS RULE GOVERNING SHAREHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTIONS IS PROCEDURAL, NOT SUBSTANTIVE, FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH RULE DOES NOT BAR SUIT IN NEW YORK (CT APP).
UNLIKE A LEVEL-ONE OR LEVEL-TWO STREET STOP, A LEVEL-THREE STREET STOP JUSTIFIES POLICE PURSUIT, EVEN IF THE REASON FOR THE STOP, HERE AN APPARENT IMPENDING ASSAULT, WAS DISSIPATED BY THE SUSPECT’S FLIGHT (CT APP).
DEFENDANT, AT THE TIME OF THE PLEA, AGREED TO A SENTENCE OF 20 DAYS OF COMMUNITY SERVICE; AT SENTENCING, AFTER DEFENDANT HAD COMPLETED THE COMMUNITY SERVICE, THE PROSECUTOR AND DEFENSE COUNSEL ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE BARGAINED-FOR SENTENCE WAS A ONE-YEAR CONDITIONAL DISCHARGE; ON APPEAL DEFENDANT ARGUED HE NEVER AGREED TO THE CONDITIONAL DISCHARGE AND HIS GUILTY PLEA WAS THEREFORE NOT VOLUNTARY; THE MAJORITY HELD THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED FOR APPEAL (CT APP).
IF QUESTIONING A DEFENDANT ABOUT WHERE HE/SHE LIVES SERVES AN ADMINISTRATIVE PURPOSE AND IS NOT A DISGUISED ATTEMPT TO OBTAIN INCRIMINATING INFORMATION, DEFENDANT’S ANSWER IS SUBJECT TO THE PEDIGREE EXCEPTION TO THE MIRANDA REQUIREMENT; DNA EVIDENCE GATHERED BY THE FORENSIC STATISTICAL TOOL (FST) SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED WITHOUT HOLDING A FRYE HEARING (CT APP).

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

Whether Plaintiff “Justifiably Relied” on Alleged Misrepresentations... Admission of Child Abuse Made by Defendant to Psychiatrist Protected by Physician-Patient...