You are here: / / ACCIDENT CAUSED BY HIGH PRESSURE, NOT GRAVITY; INJURY NOT COVERED BY LABOR...

ACCIDENT CAUSED BY HIGH PRESSURE, NOT GRAVITY; INJURY NOT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s injury was not the result of the force of gravity and was therefore not covered under Labor Law 240(1):

Plaintiff … was struck by a pipe while it was being flushed clean with a highly pressurized mixture of air, water, and a rubber “rabbit” device. The movement of this mixture through the pipe failed to bring the mechanism of plaintiff’s injury within the ambit of section 240(1) because it did not involve “the direct consequence of the application of the force of gravity to an object” … . The mixture in the pipe did not move through the exercise of the force of gravity, but was rather intentionally propelled through the pipe through the use of high pressure … . Joseph v City of New York, 2016 NY Slip Op 06649, 1st Dept 10-11-16

LABOR LAW-CONSTRUCTION LAW (ACCIDENT CAUSED BY HIGH PRESSURE, NOT GRAVITY; INJURY NOT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1))/GRAVITY (LABOR LAW, ACCIDENT CAUSED BY HIGH PRESSURE, NOT GRAVITY; INJURY NOT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1))

You might also like
Releases Effectively Prohibiting Decedent’s Exercise of a Power of Appointment In Favor of Decedent’s Wife Were Not Procured by Constructive Fraud
EVEN THOUGH PLAINTIFF BICYCLIST HAD THE RIGHT OF WAY AND DEFENDANT’S TRUCK CROSSED INTO HIS PATH, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF COULD HAVE AVOIDED THE ACCIDENT (FIRST DEPT).
Homeowner’s Exemption Applied/Fact that Three Unrelated Families Lived in the Home Did Not Negate the Finding that the Home Was a Single Family Dwelling
DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT THERE WAS PROBABLE CAUSE FOR PLAINTIFF’S ARREST FOR THE CHARGED CRIMES OR FOR ANY UNCHARGED CRIMES; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
THE WRENCH WHICH FELL AND STRUCK PLAINTIFF COULD HAVE BEEN TETHERED TO THE WORKER WHO DROPPED IT; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION; PLAINTIFF NEED NOT SUBMIT AN EXPERT AFFIDAVIT (FIRST DEPT).
Supervision, Even If Inadequate, Could Not Have Prevented Injury Caused by the Sudden, Unanticipated Act of Another Student—Summary Judgment to Defendant Properly Granted
THE DIRECT BENEFITS THEORY OF ESTOPPEL WAS NOT APPLICABLE TO PLAINTIFF, A NONSIGNATORY TO THE AGREEMENT WITH THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE; THE PLAINTIFF, THERFORE, COULD NOT BE COMPELLED TO ARBITRATE (FIRST DEPT).
THE ARBITRATOR-PANEL DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO RECONSIDER A PARTIAL FINAL AWARD IN THIS DISPUTE BETWEEN AN INSURER AND THE INSURED, THE PANEL INITIALLY FOUND THAT A $10 MILLION SETTLEMENT PAID BY THE INSURED WAS NOT A COVERED LOSS, BUT SUBSEQUENTLY REVERSED ITSELF (FIRST 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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

NEW YORK’S BORROWING STATUTE APPLIES PURSUANT TO CONTRACTUAL CHOICE OF... PSYCHIATRIC CENTER DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO JUSTIFY CONTINUED...