You are here: / / PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL CARRYING A TANK WHILE WALKING ON THE MUDDY BOTTOM...

PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL CARRYING A TANK WHILE WALKING ON THE MUDDY BOTTOM OF AN EXCAVATED HOLE; THE BOTTOM OF THE HOLE WAS NOT A PASSAGEWAY (LABOR LAW 241(6)) AND THERE WAS NO ELEVATION-RELATED RISK (LABOR LAW 240(1); THOSE TWO CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law 240(1) and 241(6) causes of action should have been granted. Plaintiff slipped and fell walking in a muddy, excavated hole. The bottom of the hole was not a passageway within the meaning of Labor Law 241(6) and there was relevant elevation-related risk:

Plaintiff is not entitled to relief under Labor Law § 241(6) for the alleged violation of Industrial Code § 23-1.7(d), since the “excavation pit” where he slipped and fell, “which at that time was no more than a big hole in the ground with an unfinished muddy bottom[,] … was not the type of flooring or passageway contemplated by” the Industrial Code … . Contrary to plaintiff’s contention, his “accident did not occur on a floor, platform, passageway or similar work area or surface within the purview of [section 23-1.7(d)], but rather on muddy ground in an open area exposed to the elements” … . There was no testimony tending to establish that he was walking along a walkway or path that “workers generally took” … . …

Summary judgment also should have been granted to defendants dismissing plaintiff’s Labor Law § 240(1) claim, because there was no elevation-related risk involved with his carrying a tank on his shoulder while he walked along the ground … . Alvarado v SC 142 W. 24 LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 05584, First Dept 10-6-22

Practice Point: Plaintiff slipped and fell while walking on the muddy bottom of an excavated hole. He was not walking on a passageway, so the Labor Law 241(6) cause of action should have been dismissed. There was no elevation-related risk, so the Labor Law 240(1) cause of action should have been dismissed.

 

You might also like
Interplay Between New York Labor Law and Federal Longshore Workers’ Compensation Act Discussed
INJURY CAUSED BY CEMENT BOARDS FALLING FROM AN A-FRAME CART COVERED UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) (FIRST DEPT).
THE PHRASE “CONSUMMATION OF THE ANTICIPATED MARRIAGE” IN THE PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT, A CONDITION PRECEDENT, MEANT THE MARRIAGE CEREMONY, NOT SEXUAL RELATIONS; THE WIFE’S ARGUMENT THAT THE PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT COULD NOT BE ENFORCED BECAUSE THE COUPLE NEVER HAD SEXUAL RELATIONS WAS REJECTED BY THE APPELLATE COURT (FIRST DEPT).
AFFIDAVIT WAS SUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE PLAINTIFF BANK’S ENTITLEMENT TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION UNDER THE CONTROLLING ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER AND THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT IN THIS ELEVATOR ACCIDENT CASE WAS NOT A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, HE HAD BEEN QUALIFIED AS AN EXPERT IN 120 CASES; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE SUMMARILY DISQUALIFIED HIM (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT ALLEGED DEFENSE COUNSEL OVERSTATED THE RISK OF DEPORTATION CAUSING HIM TO REJECT A FAVORABLE PLEA OFFER; DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HIS MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION BASED UPON INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFFS’ LEGAL MALPRACTICE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; PLAINTIFFS’ 2010 BREACH OF A CONDOMINIUM-SALE CONTRACT ACTION WAS DISMISSED ON STATUTE OF FRAUDS GROUNDS; WHEN A WRITTEN CONTRACT SUBSEQUENTLY SURFACED, DEFENDANT ATTORNEYS DID NOT MOVE TO RENEW, VACATE OR APPEAL THE ORDER (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH AN INDICTMENT NEED NOT ALLEGE ACCESSORIAL LIABILITY TO BE LEGALLY SUFFICIENT; WHERE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE A DEFENDANT ACTED AS A PRINCIPAL THE JURY MUST BE INSTRUCTED ON ACCESSORIAL LIABILITY; THE FAILURE TO SO INSTRUCT THE JURY HERE RENDERED THE CONVICTION AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE (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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE COMPLAINT DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT BECAUSE... REFUSING TO SUBMIT TO A DWI BREATH TEST IS NOT AN OFFENSE (FOURTH DEPT).