You are here: / / Lateral Shift of Heavy Equipment, Which Pinned Plaintiff Against a Column,...

Lateral Shift of Heavy Equipment, Which Pinned Plaintiff Against a Column, Not Gravity-Related—Not Covered Under Labor Law 240 (1)

The First Department determined Supreme Court should have dismissed plaintiff’s Labor Law 240 (1) cause of action because plaintiff’s injury was not caused by a falling object. Plaintiff was moving an 8000 pound piece of equipment across a flat platform when the equipment shifted laterally and pinned plaintiff against a column. Because the accident did not flow from the application of the force of gravity, it was not covered under Labor Law 240 (1):

Plaintiff and his coworkers were moving a piece of an 8,000-pound piece of equipment across a flat platform. The ultimate goal was to place the equipment onto the forks of a forklift. Plaintiff testified that because two wheels broke off, the workers were pushing and pulling the equipment when it pinned him against a column on the side of the platform. Plaintiff testified that they did not lift the equipment into the air, and that it did not fall. Nor did he know what caused the equipment to shift laterally towards his side. Plaintiff’s testimony established that the piece of equipment that pinned him to the column was not a “falling object” and that he was not a “falling worker,” and the accident did not otherwise flow from the application of the force of gravity. Thus, he was not covered by Labor Law § 240(1) under the current case law … . Martinez v 342 Prop. LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 03770, 1st Dept 5-5-15

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT DRIVER ADMITTED IN THE ACCIDENT REPORT HE WAS AWARE THE ROADS WERE WET AND SLIPPERY AT THE TIME THE DEFENDANT’S BUS SKIDDED INTO PLAINTIFF’S BUS AFTER HITTING A PUDDLE, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED DEFENDANT DRIVER WAS GOING TOO FAST FOR CONDITIONS, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DESPITE DEFENDANT’S DENIAL OF HIS ADMISSION IN HIS AFFIDAVIT OPPOSING THE MOTION (FIRST DEPT).
FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE MADE FINDINGS WHICH WOULD ALLOW THE CHILD TO PETITION FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS (SIJS) (FIRST DEPT).
THE FORECLOSURE ABUSE PREVENTION ACT (FAPA) APPLIES RETROACTIVELY; THE DEFENDANT MORTGAGE COMPANY IS ESTOPPED BY CPLR 213(4)(A) FROM ASSERTING THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR A FORECLOSURE HAS NOT EXPIRED; PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT SEEKING DISCHARGE AND CANCELLATION OF THE MORTGAGE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
Plaintiff’s Double-Parked Vehicle Furnished a Condition for the Accident But Was Not a Proximate Cause of the Acciden
TILTING A SKID FROM A VERTICAL POSITION ONTO A DOLLY IS COVERED UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1), QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A SAFETY DEVICE WAS REQUIRED.
NO INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL FROM DENIAL OF A CIVIL MOTION MADE IN THE CONTEXT OF A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING.
Attorney’s Failure to Investigate Client’s Premises Liability Claim Before Encouraging Settlement Raised Issue of Fact About Malpractice
SPRINT IS NOT A UTILITY AND THEREFORE IS NOT EXEMPT FROM THE UNINCORPORATED BUSINESS INCOME TAX.

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

Records of Pedigree Information Which Was Linked to the Defendant and Was Supplied... Supervision, Even If Inadequate, Could Not Have Prevented Injury Caused by the...