You are here: / / Injury Caused by Lifting a Heavy Beam Not Covered by Labor Law 240(1),...

Injury Caused by Lifting a Heavy Beam Not Covered by Labor Law 240(1), Despite the Fact the Beam Was Resting on an Elevated Scaffold

The Second Department determined that plaintiff’s injury was not related to the type of hazard covered by Labor Law 240(1). Plaintiff injured his back when he lifted a beam which was resting on an elevated scaffold. The court explained:

“[T]he extraordinary protections of Labor Law § 240(1) extend only to a narrow class of special hazards, and do not encompass any and all perils that may be connected in some tangential way with the effects of gravity'” … . Rather, the statute was designed to prevent accidents in which a protective device, ” proved inadequate to shield the injured worker from harm directly flowing from the application of the force of gravity to an object or person'” … .

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of [the defendant’s] motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240(1). *  *  * … [T]he plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether his injury arose from an elevation-related risk contemplated by the statute, rather than from the usual and ordinary dangers of the construction site … . The fact that the plaintiff was injured while lifting a heavy object does not give rise to liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240(1) … . Cardenas v BBM Constr. Corp., 2015 NY Slip Op 08142, 2nd Dept 11-12-15

 

You might also like
THE FACT THAT DEFENDANT’S REPRESENTATIVE’S SIGNATURE AND THE JURAT APPEARED ON AN OTHERWISE BLANK PAGE SEPARATE FROM THE AFFIDAVIT WAS NOT A GROUND FOR DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
In Consolidated Actions Started in Different Counties, the County Where the First Action Was Brought is the Proper Venue
UNION’S CLAIM MEDICAL TREATMENT FOR LINE OF DUTY INJURIES WAS BEING UNDULY DELAYED OR DENIED WAS ARBITRABLE, WHETHER THE UNDERLYING GRIEVANCE WAS TIMELY BROUGHT MUST BE DETERMINED BY THE ARBITRATOR, NOT THE COURT (SECOND DEPT).
A COMPLAINT THAT IS NEVER SERVED DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN “ACTION;” HERE A PRIOR COMPLAINT WAS NEVER SERVED; THEREFORE THE INSTANT COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON THE GROUND THERE WAS ANOTHER IDENTICAL ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
Block Falling from Pallet Covered Under Labor Law 240(1)/Criteria for Common Law Indemnification Explained
PLAINTIFF’S DEPOSITION TESTIMONY, SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER IN THIS STAIRCASE SLIP AND FALL CASE, SUFFICIENTLY IDENTIFIED THE CAUSES OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL AND RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT DEFENDANT’S CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION OF THE STAIRCASE; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE COURT SHOULD HAVE HELD A FRYE HEARING ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF DNA-RELATED EVIDENCE GENERATED BY THE FORENSIC STATISTICAL TOOL (FST); CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE DETERMINED WHETHER THE MATTER WAS ARBITRABLE INSTEAD OF SENDING IT TO AN ARBITRATION PANEL, THE APPELLANTS ARGUED THEY WERE NOT PARTIES TO THE AGREEMENT WITH THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE (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

Motions for Findings Allowing Child to Petition for Special Immigrant Juvenile... Payment of Rent Does Not Waive the Tenant’s Right to Recover Rent Paid...