You are here: / / Failure to Wear Hard Hat Does Not Preclude 240(1) Claim

Failure to Wear Hard Hat Does Not Preclude 240(1) Claim

he First Department determined a worker was entitled to partial summary judgment on a 240(1) claim based on a falling pipe striking him in the head.  The fact that the worker was not wearing a hard hat did not raise a triable issue of fact on the 240(1) claim:

The evidence demonstrates that plaintiff, a welder who was working at a power plant that was being constructed, was struck on the head by a pipe that fell from a height of approximately 85 to 120 feet as a result of a gap in a toeboard installed along a grated walkway near the top of a generator in the power plant … . It is undisputed that there was no netting to prevent objects from falling on workers and contrary to defendants’ contention, plaintiff is not required to show exactly how the pipe fell, since, under any of the proffered theories, the lack of protective devices was the proximate cause of his injuries …. Nor is plaintiff required to show that the pipe was being hoisted or secured when it fell, since that is not a precondition to liability pursuant to Labor Law § 240(1) … .

In opposition, defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact since they failed to show that adequate protective devices required by Labor Law § 240(1) were employed at the site. That plaintiff was wearing a welding hood but not a hard hat does not raise an issue of fact since “[a] hard hat is not the type of safety device enumerated in Labor Law § 240(1) to be constructed, placed and operated, so as to give proper protection from extraordinary elevation-related risks to a construction worker” … . Mercado v Caithness Long Is LLC, 2013 NY Slip Op 02005, 9634, 102473/09, 590277/11, 1st Dept 3-26-13

 

You might also like
THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION (DOCCS) VIOLATED THE LESS IS MORE ACT (LIMA) BY FAILING TO HOLD A RECOGNIZANCE HEARING WITHIN 24 HOURS, AND FAILING TO HOLD A PRELIMINARY HEARING WITHIN FIVE DAYS OF THE EXECUTION OF THE PAROLE-VIOLATION WARRANT; HABEAS CORPUS PETITION PROPERLY GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
THERE WAS NO DIRECT OR CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF THE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S-DECEDENT’S FALL FROM A LADDER; ONLY A DEFECTIVE OR UNSAFE LADDER GIVES RISE TO LABOR LAW 240(1) LIABILITY; THE TRIER OF FACT WOULD HAVE TO RESORT TO SPECULATION; THE ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
WHEN DEFENDANT PLED GUILTY IN 2002 HE WAS NOT INFORMED OF THE PERIOD OF POST RELEASE SUPERVISION (PRS) AND HE DID NOT MOVE TO WITHDRAW THE PLEA IN 2010 WHEN PRS WAS ADDED TO HIS SENTENCE; DEFENDANT DID NOT WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO CONTEST THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE 2002 CONVICTION RE: A PERSISTENT FELONY OFFENDER DESIGNATION (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT DID NOT DENY ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT WHICH ALLEGED GENERAL JURISDICTION OVER THE DEFENDANT, THEREFORE JURISDICTION WAS CONFERRED ON THE COURT, THE MECHANICS OF SUCCESSFULLY DENYING JURISDICTION EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT).
THE CONTINUING WRONG DOCTRINE APPLIES TO THIS COMPLEX BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION SUCH THAT EACH BREACH WAS AN ACTIONABLE EVENT; THEREFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DID NOT START RUNNING FOR ALL SUBSEQUENT BREACHES WHEN THE FIRST BREACH OCCURRED (FIRST DEPT).
FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO MODIFY A SEPARATION AGREEMENT WHICH WAS INCORPORATED BUT NOT MERGED INTO THE JUDGMENT OF DIVORCE; A PLENARY ACTION IS REQUIRED (FIRST DEPT).
THE DEFENDANTS’ FAILURE TO APPEAR AT THE SCHEDULED EXAMINATIONS UNDER OATH BREACHED A CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR INSURANCE COVERAGE ENTITLING THE INSURER TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ITS CAUSE OF ACTION FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NONCOVERAGE (FIRST DEPT).
Attempted Kidnapping Charge Supported by Sufficient Evidence/Defendant Tried to Convince the 10-Year-Old Victim to Take His Keys and Go to His Apartment

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

Oral Partnership Agreement Dissolvable at Will Because of Lack of Specifici... Assault by Another Student—Question Whether School District Had Notice...